HPAC in 30 minutes

[H simmens]

Healthy Planet Action Coalition meeting  today in 30 minutes 4:30 PM EDT.



Our regular session today is an open meeting. 

We will have an opportunity to discuss issues, projects, ideas, opportunities and questions on our minds.  

Zoom below. 

Herb

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

[Sev Clarke]

This claim that is strongly qualified by the word that I have highlighted in red from The Hill Vivek Ramaswamy says US 'climate change agenda' is a 'hoax'

GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy railed against climate-conscious business policy at an Iowa State Fair appearance Saturday. 

In an fireside chat with Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Ramaswamy said that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) business policies are among the “grave threats to liberty,” and said “the climate change agenda” is a “hoax.”

is actually not far off the mark. The IPCC, US, EU, Canada, Australia and many other governments, industries and businesses, being fixated on ERA (and possibly GGR and greenwashing), are indeed promulgating an (unwitting?) hoax in that they CANNOT work sufficiently fast as to avoid climate catastrophe. Only DCC methods can apply the necessary tourniquet to give us time for ERA and GGR to work their magic. Forget the bit about ESG being a grave threat to liberty. That is Republican puffery that all candidates have to follow.

Can any of you think how we might turn this to advantage SRM and ERM methods and investigation?

Cheers,

Sev

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/59F5E125-D143-4B31-AD31-6A5DC9307BB7%40gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Sev

 

Thanks for this comment, illustrating the difficult politics in climate change.  Is the “climate change agenda” a hoax?  A hoax generally refers to a deliberately fabricated or deceptive story, statement or event that is intended to deceive or trick people into believing something that is not true.  However, reckless indifference to the truth can also enable a non-deliberate hoax.

 

As an example to support your point, on 11 August the Guardian falsely and recklessly stated that coral bleaching “will only get worse until there is a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.”  This is an absurd and unscientific claim.  There is no possibility that emission reduction could affect coral bleaching.  It is far too small and slow and contested to cut temperature in time.  Only solar geoengineering can make any difference to protect coral.  Anyone who believes the Guardian statement is the victim of a hoax.

 

The true believers in the Guardian and their millions of followers resolutely ignore all evidence that contradicts their political ideology, through the convenient theory that all criticism of emission reduction is part of a vast right wing conspiracy.  As such, the Guardian are not deliberately hoaxing the public, since they believe their own bullshit.  But a hoax does not actually have to be deliberate.

 

It is understandable that Republicans call emission reduction a hoax, given that claims about the cooling potential of net zero emissions are blatantly impossible.  The refusal by climate activists to accept simple scientific evidence in order to pursue a political agenda functions as a hoax even if that is not the intent.  People legitimately feel hoaxed when a con artist honestly believes his assertions are true, and his victims end up footing the bill, when he is recklessly indifferent to the truth in support of political or commercial agendas.  That is absolutely the case for emission reduction.

 

This claim from Ramaswamy that the climate agenda is a hoax is of course completely different from President Trump’s false assertions that climate change is a hoax.  Ramaswamy is referring to political responses by Democrats, not climate science.  It should be very clear that the false ideology of emission reduction alone is a cruel hoax, generating false hope in ways that cannot possibly be delivered.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/F87A9E81-6F2A-448D-AA36-5CEAEDBAAE20%40icloud.com.

[Tom Goreau]

This is a very common error, widely repeated by people who don’t understand the time scales on which carbon and temperature cycles act!

 

Bleaching is caused by high temperature, not by high CO2!

 

Coral bleaching will not go away until either 1) global sea surface temperatures decrease about 1 degree C below current levels, or 2) until all the corals have already died of heatstroke.

 

Few corals in Florida and much of Cuba and the Bahamas will survive the coming weeks.

 

Another popular coral climate change fallacy is that ocean acidification kills corals: every article about acidification shows photographs of corals that have been bleached by high temperature.

 

As a matter of fact, acidity is just about the only environmental stress that does NOT result in bleaching; you can dissolve a coral skeleton in acidified water and the coral does not bleach, nor die.

 

As long as it has food it will continue to grow like a sea anemone, for years, and will grow a new skeleton when put back into ocean water.

 

But I wouldn’t call these false claims “hoaxes”, in the sense of being deliberate, they are being spread by people who just don’t know any better because these issues have been so badly oversimplified in popular media, and people don’t want to take the time to understand the issues in depth.

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

“When you run to the rocks, the rocks will be melting, when you run to the sea, the sea will be boiling”, Peter Tosh, Jamaica’s greatest song writer

 

 

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/02c101d9cde1%242eb7bf70%248c273e50%24%40rtulip.net.

[Sev Clarke]

Yes, it is likely that the hoax by our governments in this case is not deliberate, but it is still a cruel, if not intended, hoax as described in Robbie’s response. However, I suspect that some governmental advisors may be beginning to realise that neither ERA nor GGR can provide solutions - which only adds to the cruelty aspect. 

Perhaps, those of us who are US voters, political analysts, or who are just young Americans, might give us their take on what would be the likely effect of a Republican presidential candidate making good on his claim that the Biden Administration’s ‘climate change agenda’ was indeed an unintended hoax that cannot deliver. Might that cause either the Administration, or else one or more democratic presidential hopefuls, to embrace some of our DCC solutions instead of over-funding ERA and GGR measures? Would the issue tend to split the Republican vote or to return it to its sensible and responsible moderate roots?  Is this a way out for some of those MAGA supporters deluded by successive elite and regulatory betrayals, by fast-creeping inequality, hopelessness, and by Trump’s deadly attraction. Might young Americans of both political persuasions take up our hopeful and science-based solutions? Thus, might America really become great again whilst helping to lead other deluded nations back to climate sanity before it is too late? What folk should be alerted to these opportunities?  Does this have relevance to the joint DCC website that is being planned?

Sev  

In an fireside chat with Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Ramaswamy said that environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) business policies are among the “grave threats to liberty,” and said “the climate changeagenda” is a “hoax.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/BY3PR13MB4994AD3339FD8F7E7D418B2EDD16A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Sev,

I appreciate that you are attempting to find some way to take Vivek’s comments as a means to advance a DCC agenda. 

I don’t see how his comments however can assist us as he is essentially reinforcing the Republican pro fossil fuel agenda that has dominated the party for the last 15 years or so. 

I think that he is missing a real opportunity to boost his popularity as much higher percentages of Republicans under 40 accept climate reality and would be very inclined to support him if he were to outline what a conservative but genuine Climate advancement policy might look like. 

And since DCC does not require either the kind of sweeping economic and behavioral changes that Republican so deeply dislike or even the immediate dismantlement of the carbon combustion complex it’s not inconceivable that he or one of his fellow candidates could gain some support by coming out for DCC. 

The problem is that since the party essentially denies the reality of climate change to begin with, it’s very difficult for any of them to propose any kind of solution to a problem that is assumed to be nonexistent by most of their base, or at least the older and more influential segment of their base. 

Whether the horrors of this summer will make any difference politically once things literally and figuratively cool down in two months remains to be seen. 

The incoherence of his climate views are evidenced by this FOX news story:

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Aug 13, 2023, at 8:31 PM, 'Sev Clarke' via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Yes, it is likely that the hoax by our governments in this case is not deliberate, but it is still a cruel, if not intended, hoax as described in Robbie’s response. However, I suspect that some governmental advisors may be beginning to realise that neither ERA nor GGR can provide solutions - which only adds to the cruelty aspect. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/D3CF7969-9DD8-4A19-9FD2-4308A932438E%40icloud.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Tom

 

A common hoaxing method is that the hoaxer deliberately avoids gaining knowledge that could reveal the deception that justifies their conduct.

 

Where a hoaxer is motivated by personal gain, such as in a scam business or a religious cult, or by political ideology, as in communism, they can manage the cognitive dissonance by allowing their reasoning processes to automatically reject all conflicting information.

 

That is what is happening with the emission reduction hoax.  The claim that decarbonising the economy could be a primary factor in cooling the planet conflicts with basic scientific information.  Fixing the carbon problem is secondary to albedo.  It is the deliberate refusal to find out about facts that makes the carbon claim a hoax.

 

Al Gore’s claim that we can stop temperature rising after net zero emissions is definitely a hoax.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB4994AD3339FD8F7E7D418B2EDD16A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Peter Eisenberger]

I suggest  that all us fighting the climate change threat are on the same team but focusing on different approaches 

That we try to avoid throwing stones in glass houses and focus on how to improve our own approach 

I have been a fan of doing research on SRM. I came across this paper 

I saw this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01738-w

and would like to know what the response is of those advocating SRM and other such approaches 

that are indirect and do not solve the root cause of climate change- to many greenhouse gases

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/044601d9ce53%241f1bbfe0%245d533fa0%24%40rtulip.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

[Ye Tao]

The root cause to the current warming is not amenable to be solved with the current social and economic organization.   Smoking causes lung cancer.  A lung cancer patient will not heal from quitting smoking.   Emissions are causing warming.  Stopping emissions will not cause cooling; in fact a total stop will cause more and more rapid heating within 10 years.

We can only manage symptoms using local solar radiation optimization coupled with agriculturally focused degrowth to avoid causing further harm.  We then have a chance to address the root cause over century timescales.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANx_M7SA%2BCudLhGEHtzszJ_1-bW9Ge7%3DD8emvy35tnDD6A40%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sev Clarke]

Peter,

Yes, we are all on the same team and should be promoting a variety of novel approaches.

No to throwing gratuitous stones, but this should not prevent in-house, constructive criticism and concept improvement.

Emission reductions cannot prevent or delay summer polar sea ice loss, probable WAIS collapse, or other climate tipping points being activated, but combinations of SRM, TRM, GGR and ERA may prevent or moderate many of those being activated. Even if the WAIS and Greenland ice sheets do largely disappear, there is a chance that we could re-establish them following a long period of cooling and ice thickening. We should be able to increase polar sea ice in a much shorter period. It will probably be harder to re-establish the snow and ice cover of the third pole, but beneficially influencing rain and snowfall there should be possible. 

Only a few SRM and TRM approaches can act at sufficient scale and in time to prevent really bad global outcomes.

Some CI methods have combinations of SRM, TRM and/or GGR effects - in particular my Buoyant Flakes, Seatomisers and Ice Shields - but these effects are yet to be quantified and optimised by modelling and experiment. They involve little risk if done in carefully-gated ways. They are anything but indirect, and potentially do address root causes as well as the essential tourniquet approaches. Other methods may do likewise but typically also require urgent investigation, funding, development and approval.

Sev

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CANx_M7SA%2BCudLhGEHtzszJ_1-bW9Ge7%3DD8emvy35tnDD6A40%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ronal Larson]

Robert:

This is to support Al Gore.  I have just lstened to his Ted talk week ago and find nothing there to justify your claim of his temp rise claim being a hoax.  In the last minute, he cites a well known climate person (Drew Shindell) on that claim .  See https://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_what_the_fossil_fuel_industry_doesn_t_want_you_to_know?language=en

May not come true, but a whole lot of climate people believe it.  SRM is important but so is CDR.

Ron

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/044601d9ce53%241f1bbfe0%245d533fa0%24%40rtulip.net.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Sev 

I certainly agree that constructive criticism and concept improvement is critical. 

In that vein the nature article I referenced https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01738-w 

does include constructive assertions that need to be addressed to improve the concept of dealing 

with the symptoms instead of the underlying root cause. Most notable for me is the risk of unintended consequences 

and the fact that they cannot be tested -we have only one planet - and thus like many such situations of doing things 

for the first time that the only way to learn is by failing -causing an unintended consequences. 

A well known adage for these situations are that the cure is worse than the disease - I am not asserting that will be the case 

but I am asserting it is a risk that is impossible to quantitfy ( butterfly effect -non linearity of the planets ecosystem) 

and again we only have one planet 

Peter 

[Sev Clarke]

Peter,

There have already been some thirteen tests of ocean fertilisation, fourteen if one accounts that of Russ George, and NONE of them have reported any adverse consequences, whilst most have reported some beneficial ones. Furthermore, for the past ten thousand years we have provided similar, supplementary nutrients to the land. Nor have any butterfly effects, or those of non-linearities, been reported. Buoyant Flakes can and are being tested at pericosm, mesocosm, and soon gated, open ocean experiments. The scale can be tripled many times over, in different ocean locations, until we can be as sure as possible that the net effects are positive. Modelling and such experiments should be able to allay almost all putative risks. You are scaring folk with phantoms and mirages. The risk is by no means impossible to quantify. 

You are saying that the risk of adverse effects is worse than the certainty of climate catastrophe if we do not practice direct cooling and GGR. I think you will find that most professional risk managers would regard your hesitancy as both inexplicable and existentially irresponsible. 

Your thoughts?

Sev

[Peter Eisenberger]

Sev 

I encourage you to not make personal attacks -it contradicts everything you asserted. 

As to your content comments 

The scale needed is much greater than tested and many "butterfly effects" have threshold before they emerge 

As to your comments about natures past the difference is the dramatic change in the  kinetics of change from millions of years 

to a hundred years. The five great extinctions in our past like an asteroid that made the dinosaurs extinct 

took the planet millions of years to recover changing the nature of life that could survive. 

Again please refrain  from personal attacks on anyone trying to fight the climate threat we all face 

PS a careful reading of my email makes clear I was not asserting that in this case the cure was a greater threat 

than the disease just that it might be the case. 

Peter 

 

[Clive Elsworth]

It seems to me the root cause of climate change is political dysfunction at the global level. Without binding treaties to ensure effective collaboration there will always be free riders, and that puts everyone else off. It was more important to national leaders for their nations to be great again, beginning with Trump, and now we have Putin and Xi Jinping waging or planning war so their nations can be great again.

 

Did I miss something or did we lose the climate game already? If Professor Jane Francis, director of the British Antarctic Survey is correct that Greenland melt has passed its point of no return, and no amount of sun shielding during summer months in the Arctic and the rest of the oceans all year round can reverse the situation, then we’re in for a bumpy ride as we all try to cope with the resulting sealevel rise. 

I guess the next question for me is: how rapid is that melt rate going to get and how soon? From now on, rather than temperature graph projections, I will be looking out for graphs of projected sea level rise over time.

 

But maybe Alan Gadian is right that there is more to fear from unimaginably destructive storms. At least that was the implication of Jim Hansen’s book Storms of my grandchildren.

 

I’d love to see someone explain why all that’s wrong, and there’s still everything to play for.

 

Clive

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/280C94C4-A03B-4F1B-8A55-017B5FFCC779%40icloud.com.

[Tom Goreau]

A recent Nature paper makes a strong claim that melting of the West Antarctic Ice sheet is essentially irreversible too.

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/860268632.1961527.1692079169933%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

There was also a paper in Nature last year saying that trying to moderate tropical cyclones would be futile.

I wrote the following to the authors but did not get a reply.

 

Your article in Nature of 19 August  https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-022-00519-1  says that attempts to weaken tropical cyclones by ocean cooling would be futile.

I attach a note about the use of autonomous, wind-driven spray vessels to do this and would be grateful if you could check my calculations.   The vessel design follows the proposal by Latham to exploit the Twomey effect to increase global reflectivity.

If you want to act when a hurricane is forecast you will be too late.  You should have started last November. I would want vessels to cruise between Africa and the Gulf of Mexico, an area 50 times more than your figure. I want to do this over 200 days, 100 times longer than you suggest. We therefore disagree by a factor of 5000!  

I want to adjust vessel position and spray rate using satellite temperature measurements to get the pattern of sea surface temperatures to approach those given  by the Governments of surrounding countries.  They will adjust payments to spraying contractors according to how close they can get.

I attach calculations on the vessel number required. The answer depends on a number of assumptions for solar input, cloud fraction, boundary layer depth, initial nuclei concentration and subsequent life of spray. These vary widely. The ones I have used have been circulated for comment to the climate community and I can easily change them to ones you suggest. If you accept them, the number of vessels for moderating Atlantic hurricanes by a 2K reduction in sea surface temperature is about 300.

Vessel design is nearly complete.  The displacement is 90 tonnes and the power requirement 300 kW.  Flower class Corvettes were built in similar numbers but with higher power and displacement.  If we index link Corvette cost and use the present cost per tonne of heavy earth moving machinery we can hope that vessel cost in full production will be about  $5million each.

I would be grateful if you could check my figures and suggest desirable temperature patterns.   Is cooling of 2K enough? 

Would you like to see calculations about sea level rise and Arctic ice and a way to increase sea evaporation?

 

Best wishes

I did wonder if Nature had a negative climate policy.

 

Stephen

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Tom Goreau
Sent: 15 August 2023 11:36
To: Clive Elsworth <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>; Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>; Sev Clarke' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] Strategy

 

This email was sent to you by someone outside the University.

You should only click on links or attachments if you are certain that the email is genuine and the content is safe.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB4994335B829BF62575B32E0EDD14A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh SC005336.

[rob de laet]

Hello Stephen, 

Maybe nature can and nature does exactly this. The increased strength of the biotic pump over the Amazon rainforest likely will have this effect to decrease energy embedded in hurricanes over the tropical Atlantic. See the articl Douglas Sheil wrote in 2017 about this subject. I cc-d him in. 

Forests versus hurricanes - CIFOR Forests News

Forests versus hurricanes - CIFOR Forests News Douglas Sheil The 12-year absence of major hurricane landfalls in the continental USA ended earlier this year: Hurricane Harve...

Best,

Rob de Laet 

Member of the Eco Restoration Alliance

Fellow of the Global Evergreening Alliance

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/PAXPR05MB8048212CE64E1A755A8A262BA714A%40PAXPR05MB8048.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks Ron, this is mostly a great talk from Al Gore.  He rightly details how badly the fossil fuel industry has corrupted climate politics.  But I still maintain that his citation of Michael Mann at the end of the talk is a dangerous hoax.  The slide citing Mann is below, showing what he imagines would happen to temperature if all combustion immediately miraculously stopped today.  My understanding from comments from Ye Tao, Thomas Goreau and others is that Mann’s claim is completely untrue.

 

Gore says at 24:21:  “let me close with what I regard as amazingly good news.  What if we could stop the increase in temperatures? Well, if you look at the temperature increases, if we get to true net-zero, astonishingly, global temperatures will stop going up with a lag time of as little as three to five years. They used to think that positive feedback loops would keep that process going. No, it will not. The temperatures will stop going up. The ice will continue melting and some other things will continue, but we can stop the increase of temperatures. Even better, if we stay at true net zero, in as little as 30 years, half of all the human-caused CO2 will come out of the atmosphere into the upper ocean and the trees and vegetation.”

 

It is astonishing that Gore and Mann could express such certainty in the face of such massive unknowns about Earth system fragility and sensitivity.  The hoax here is in several parts.  Firstly, the idea of achieving net zero much before 2100 is totally unrealistic given the political and economic forces at play.  So a model that assumes net zero before then is a fantasy, and claims that it is realistic and possible are a hoax. Secondly, the reliance on the Zero Emission Commitment theory is also a hoax in my view.  Here is one paper which appears to show why the ZEC theory is unscientific.  Contrary to Mann and Gore, tipping points and committed warming mean temperature would keep going up after net zero is reached.  It seems to me that believing in ZEC as Gore proposes is a desperate way to create hope and mobilise activity despite being pure fantasy. 

 

Their argument has the very dangerous sting in the tail that nothing must be done to increase albedo because that might slow down progress to net zero emissions.  So what to do?  Accept that the moral hazard logic that prevents geoengineering research is based on a hoax.  Brightening the planet is the only thing in the immediate term that will lessen climate damage, while efforts continue to fix the carbon problem.  We can stop increasing temperature, but only by increasing albedo.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/80BC379A-54FD-46D6-B340-9F98B816B70F%40comcast.net.

[Robert Chris]

Robert

No issue with what you say here save that I really dislike your use of the word 'hoax'.  This has Trumpian connotations that are not helpful.  In addition, properly used, this word also implies a humorous aspect to the deceit.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as 'a humorous or mischievous deception, usually taking the form of a fabrication of something fictitious or erroneous, told in such a manner as to impose upon the credulity of the victim'.

I think we should call it out for what it is, a deception, a lie, misinformation, a fraud.  There's nothing in the least humorous about this.  It is literally deadly serious and we need to communicate that clearly and unequivocally.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/03de01d9cf86%24376937b0%24a63ba710%24%40rtulip.net.

[Tom Goreau]

They must be ignoring ALL carbon cycles feedbacks and response time lags to come to this conclusion.

 

A completely ahistorical claim like this is astonishing from a paleoclimatologist with Mann’s experience and knowledge.

 

But if they really believe in simple minded models instead of documented historical feedback effects, as most climate “experts” do because it’s too hard to model accurately, then it’s more a difference of opinion than a deliberate hoax?

 

In any event it’s a big mistake to use the world “hoax”, the favorite word of extreme right wing conspiracy “theorists” to describe climate change, and indeed all scientific knowledge, you don’t want to imitate the language they use to spread ignorant and false lies. Trumps your credibility!

[H simmens]

Zeke Hausfather acknowledges in his Carbon Brief Explainer that even the ZEC would not be applicable if temperatures rise above a certain level. 

“The studies featured in this piece all look at the effects of zero-emissions scenarios today or in the next few decades. If, however, zero emissions were to occur later in the century, there is the potential to lock in more carbon-cycle feedback processes – such as melting permafrost – than under current global temperature levels.“

My own view as I’ve expressed before is that this difference in views as to the validity of ZEC however scientifically important is a bit of a distraction (oh, how I hate to use that word, given how it is used to justify opposition to direct climate cooling). 

The issue is not going to be resolved anytime soon and may only be resolved retrospectively. 

In the meantime, there’s a powerful enough argument that a world of say 2° C - much less 2.5 or higher - along with continued sea level rise, glacier melts and Ecosystem deterioration for literally centuries cannot be seen as anything but unimaginably dystopian. 

Again from Zeke’s explainer:

“Moreover, temperatures are expected to remain steady rather than dropping for a few centuries after emissions reach zero, meaning that the climate change that has already occurred will be difficult to reverse in the absence of large-scale net negative emissions.”

And yet that’s the world that mainstream climate science relying on ERA - emission reductions alone - promises us even at its most optimistic flavor. 

If given a choice between a dystopian world for centuries, and an all out effort to remove and repair, it’s hard to imagine any knowledgeable individual or entity choosing the former over the latter. 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Aug 15, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:



They must be ignoring ALL carbon cycles feedbacks and response time lags to come to this conclusion.

 

A completely ahistorical claim like this is astonishing from a paleoclimatologist with Mann’s experience and knowledge.

 

But if they really believe in simple minded models instead of documented historical feedback effects, as most climate “experts” do because it’s too hard to model accurately, then it’s more a difference of opinion than a deliberate hoax?

 

In any event it’s a big mistake to use the world “hoax”, the favorite word of extreme right wing conspiracy “theorists” to describe climate change, and indeed all scientific knowledge, you don’t want to imitate the language they use to spread ignorant and false lies. Trumps your credibility!

 

 

From: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 at 10:39 AM
To: 'Ronal Larson' <rongre...@comcast.net>
Cc: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, 'Sev Clarke' <sevc...@icloud.com>, 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>, 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Strategy

Thanks Ron, this is mostly a great talk from Al Gore.  He rightly details how badly the fossil fuel industry has corrupted climate politics.  But I still maintain that his citation of Michael Mann at the end of the talk is a dangerous hoax.  The slide citing Mann is below, showing what he imagines would happen to temperature if all combustion immediately miraculously stopped today.  My understanding from comments from Ye Tao, Thomas Goreau and others is that Mann’s claim is completely untrue.

 

Gore says at 24:21:  “let me close with what I regard as amazingly good news.  What if we could stop the increase in temperatures? Well, if you look at the temperature increases, if we get to true net-zero, astonishingly, global temperatures will stop going up with a lag time of as little as three to five years. They used to think that positive feedback loops would keep that process going. No, it will not. The temperatures will stop going up. The ice will continue melting and some other things will continue, but we can stop the increase of temperatures. Even better, if we stay at true net zero, in as little as 30 years, half of all the human-caused CO2 will come out of the atmosphere into the upper ocean and the trees and vegetation.”

 

It is astonishing that Gore and Mann could express such certainty in the face of such massive unknowns about Earth system fragility and sensitivity.  The hoax here is in several parts.  Firstly, the idea of achieving net zero much before 2100 is totally unrealistic given the political and economic forces at play.  So a model that assumes net zero before then is a fantasy, and claims that it is realistic and possible are a hoax. Secondly, the reliance on the Zero Emission Commitment theory is also a hoax in my view.  Here is one paper which appears to show why the ZEC theory is unscientific.  Contrary to Mann and Gore, tipping points and committed warming mean temperature would keep going up after net zero is reached.  It seems to me that believing in ZEC as Gore proposes is a desperate way to create hope and mobilise activity despite being pure fantasy. 

 

Their argument has the very dangerous sting in the tail that nothing must be done to increase albedo because that might slow down progress to net zero emissions.  So what to do?  Accept that the moral hazard logic that prevents geoengineering research is based on a hoax.  Brightening the planet is the only thing in the immediate term that will lessen climate damage, while efforts continue to fix the carbon problem.  We can stop increasing temperature, but only by increasing albedo.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/BY3PR13MB4994B247448216E60797E155DD14A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

[Robert Chris]

Oh Herb!  How wrong you are.

'If given a choice between a dystopian world for centuries, and an all out effort to remove and repair, it’s hard to imagine any knowledgeable individual or entity choosing the former over the latter.'

Of course you'd choose the former.  An all out effort to remove and repair now is going to cost you.  A dystopian future world is going to cost someone else.  What do you care!  Or if you do care, the Nordhaus/Lomberg school maintain that through the miracle of unending economic growth and innovation future people will be much better placed to deal with these problems than we are, so it makes sense to let them handle it.  And remember, Nordhaus got the Nobel prize, so he must be right.

Moreover, you only think that future will be dystopian because it'll not be what you're accustomed to.  But if you were born then it'd be your normal and you'd probably feel sorry for all those earlier people burdened by their fantasies that happiness and contentment were dependent on money in the bank.  Security, food, shelter, friends and family, there's no reason you couldn't have those in this supposed dystopian future, and be blissfully content with your lot.  Don't be such an alarmist!

(Irony alert - or is it?)

Regards

Robert

On 15/08/2023 17:24, H simmens wrote:

 Zeke Hausfather acknowledges in his Carbon Brief Explainer that even the ZEC would not be applicable if temperatures rise above a certain level. 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/AC3ED02E-33C1-434F-A364-A85CAF1C6CA3%40gmail.com.

[H simmens]

Hi Robert,

Rather than attempt to refute or even to support your perspective that I am so wrong I would propose an experiment that would cast some light on our respective assertions. 

And that is to institute some form of deliberative democracy, perhaps through a citizen assembly as has been employed in the UK, Ireland, and France. 

A group of randomly selected folks would have the opportunity to hear the arguments for and evidence of my assertion, as well as yours. 

These folks would then deliberate much as a jury might and decide whose vision they prefer or find more credible. 

Obviously, there are any number of practical issues and challenges to instituting such an effort not least of which is to find someone to finance and manage the process. There are a multitude of ways that this effort could be organized with any given approach potentially biasing the results.

I believe quite strongly, however, that such an experiment carefully conceived and carried out and repeated with diverse groups of people would provide important lessons and guidance for those concerned with the future of humanity. 

 

Herb

Herb Simmens
Author of A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

“A SciencePoem and an Inspiration.” Kim Stanley Robinson
@herbsimmens
HerbSimmens.com

On Aug 15, 2023, at 1:05 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:



[Clive Elsworth]

Herb

 

I like your response to Robert Chris’s deliberately provocative ‘devil’s advocate’ response to your previous message. But in a world of massive trust deficits, biases, ignorance, disinterest, and conflicting interests etc. would such a study make any useful difference?

 

As a wordsmith, perhaps you could write a short play with characters arguing for both sides? Then we can record it as a video and make it public on YouTube. I would happily play one of the baddies arguing for a dystopian future, and would enjoy hamming it up.

 

A few years ago I tried to write a musical show about climate change. I found it hard to create a good enough plot, but here are some lyrics I can still remember:

 

Now I’m a Lord of her Majesty, and I’d say that’s what qualifies me

To claim on high authority, that science is a load of bunk

 

Our aim is very clear you see, we only need to guarantee

That climate action policy gets well and truly sunk

 

With lucrative directorships, and my think-tank charity

We only need to make sure there is no transparency…

 

etc.

 

Clive

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/9CFABF55-1985-4C7D-B81B-419C2FCFB071%40gmail.com.

[Daniel]

Nice lyrics Clive! 

I think the likely near term impacts on food supplies and coral reefs etc as well as the ramping up of floods, fires and other natural disasters fueled by warming oceans and atmosphere over the next couple of years, could lead to a profound change in opinion from many of those who currently believe there is 'no reason why you couldn't have food & security' in a 2C + world, or just don't care if the future is dystopian or unsurvivable.

The climate becoming unconducive to viable food systems even at 1.5C (due to the associated increase in weather extremes) will soon serve as a warning that further, prolonged  global warming, with no prospect of cooling for decades, will not be an acceptable option for humanity.

 

The rapidity of global warming now means that the current generation are likely to be so greatly affected by associated impacts on agriculture,  global food systems and other vital resources, that, even if people don't care about future generations, they would surely choose the climate restoration and direct cooling path - if made aware of this being a viable, preferable path. The alternative is to opt for severe global food insecurity, water crises and complete loss of coral reefs as well as worsening civil unrest and conflict, all within their own lifetime... nevermind future generations. 

But even then, as highlighted by Clive, it will be a challenge to persuade people when up against the 'think tanks' and other institutions working hard to deny the truth.

Best regards,

Daniel

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/938318636.2172145.1692134265940%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[rob de laet]

hear hear, 

we need to act now! Not only are we able to increase carbon sequestration by tens of Gt per year through these action and when done in the right way, decrease ocean acidification, the cooling effects include additional cloud formation, vertical ocean mixture, fish population increase and so on. 

Initial indication of this year's salmon run to Kamchatka and the Russian Pacific rivers after the volcano Bezymianny eruption 2022 indicate an increase of by 300% to maybe as many as 400 million fishes, which means a 100 fold increase in phytoplankton and 10 fold in zooplankton, sequestering tens of millions of tons of CO2 in an area of about 1 mio km2. The cooling effects of the additional aerosols and cloud formation are not known, but surely are there. Let's operationalize this asap around the world. 

Rob de Laet 

Member of the Eco Restoration Alliance

Fellow of the Global Evergreening Alliance

WhatsApp: +55 71 992617846

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/280C94C4-A03B-4F1B-8A55-017B5FFCC779%40icloud.com.

[Anton Alferness]

Clive -

I like your response to Herb's response to Robert Chris’s somewhat almost deliberately provocative ‘devil’s advocate’ response to Herb's previous slightly less than not quite provocative message which was in response to Peter's response to Sev saying he no longer accepts IOU's aka cash only please. I can tell that Franz is quietly hoping that I stop responding. 

With love,

-Anton

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/938318636.2172145.1692134265940%40email.ionos.co.uk.

[Chris Vivian]

Robert,

 

You may not be aware of this article by Dyke, Watson (ex IPCC head) and Knorr:

Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap - https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368.

 

Best wishes

 

Chris.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/03de01d9cf86%24376937b0%24a63ba710%24%40rtulip.net.

[Robert Chris]

Reptilian humanoids are not in control?  That might as well be.

Regards

Robert

On 17/08/2023 18:27, Laura Madden wrote:

good stuff Bruce. Music is a heart and mind opener.  I look forward to checking out your links.

Laura Madden

Prosperity Homegrown / Phoenix Consults - community and strategic planning

Consultant, City of Woodson Terrace

Vice President, North County Community Betterment - an initiative of A Red Circle

St. Louis, MO

Phone: 202-845-4503

www.prosperityhomegrown.org

Co-Organizer and Local Lead, Global Freshwaters Summit 

River Ambassador, Global Being Foundation

2021 Global Freshwaters Summit

On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Hola Compadres,

I had a personal comment about the lyrics of The Momentum of Ignorance being doom and gloom and wanted to further stretch out this thread on strategy into global warming psychology.

Doom and gloom climate is easy. This is the reason climate anxiety is trending. It's really difficult to get the facts across with the fossil fuel industrial complex and their lies, Earth systems collapses, the rapidly increasing extreme catastrophes and etc., --without being frightening. But here is where the special meaning of music arises. The lyrics may be dreadful, but the song is music and music soothes the savage beast.

The blues illustrate: the blues are about bad things, but we like the blues regardless. We can relate. The tune allows an implicit response that we can relate to even though the issue(s) in the blues lyrics may have never happened to the listener. It's the implicit response that matters. The main reason why we are so wigged out about climate change is that it is unknown in our advanced civilization. Our climate has never changed before, to us, in the ways that have been threatened by climate science for 30 years. It's this long threat of apocalypse that has burdened our implicit minds and created denial and delay. If we can encourage more implicit thought through more pleasant channels like music, we can condition our minds to avoid the fear and allow deeper thought.

This is one of the principles of global warming psychology, or the psychology of increasing awareness of any issue. Emotionally based, right brain learning is far more meaningful that traditional science's analytical left brain strategies.

Below is a blues number the band loves in a short beach erosion video from 2018 on South Padre (7 mins) --

And our films are here -- https://climatediscovery.org/films/
Music here - https://climatediscovery.org/climate-change-band/
Photography here - (counterintuitively beautiful) https://climatediscovery.org/photography/

108 to 109 in Austin today.

- MeltOn

We Really did Land on the Moon

(c) Bruce Melton 2009

Blues in E ( A harp)

Oh our climate is a changin
What are we gonna do
Nobody’s doin nothin
They all think it’s not true

It’s like you know
We keep telling them
We really did land
On the moon

Arctic sea ice is disappearing
Oh so incredibly fast
They say the scientists are liars
Boy they got some brass

It’s like you know
We keep telling them
Weapons of mass destruction
Were not real

Methane gas is leaking
Out of the Laptev Sea
It’s and unprecedented phenomena
Caused anthropogenic’ly

It’s like you know
We keep telling them
Elvis
Is really dead

Our oceans are acidifying
Ten times faster than before
65 million years ago
and the extinction of the dinosaurs

It’s like you know
We keep telling them
We really did land
On the moon

(Afterthoughts – between harp blows)

UFOs are not in your back yard
2012 is like December in the Myan Calendar
Y2k was just stupid
OJ did it
Paul is not dead
Jackalopes are not real
Reptilian humanoids...
are not...
in...
...control - - - - - - - - - - -

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

On 8/16/2023 6:21 PM, Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas wrote:

Bwuh, cool. Climate lyrics! From our first film in 2009 (don't laugh please - our latest film has won two awards) What Have We Done: The North American Pine Beetle Pandemic (song) -- I look back on our early songs and films and think, geeze, this was all evident before 2010...

The Momentum of Ignorance (Film Version)

ã Bruce Melton 2009

(Rock Opera Tommy style etc.)

 

(Intro – begin with drum march – Drums and acoustic only first line, then the band joins solemn and slow)

E             D                 E     EADAE (3X)

A             /                   /                 /

 

       G                 D                        A                  /

The threshold is upon us,        the barriers are down

G                   D                       A               /

Ecosystems  collapsing,          without a sound

               G                         D                A                           /                           

We have crossed the great divide and traveled to another place

G                       D                    A                            /

Not one we are familiar with, devastated without grace

G                       D                    A                            /

Not one we are familiar with, devastated without grace

G                        D                   A                           /

 

(Chorus – harmony plus double time march drums)

 

E             D                 E     EADAE

After the trees are gone

After the trees are gone

E             D            A      /

After the trees are gone

 

It’s a little hard to see from here, but not when you are there

What does it mean to us,      do we care?

What is it that we don’t see,          what have we become?

When the trees begin to fall you see, the trouble has just begun

When the trees begin to fall you see, the trouble has just begun

 

(Chorus)

(Solo short turnaround)

 

It takes cold to kill the pine beetle, cold like it was before

The Arctic and the high mountains warm and feed back to the core

Extreme insect infestations, we didn’t know what that meant

The beetle will kill the trees in our land, without sacrament

The beetle will kill the trees in our land, without sacrament

 

(Chorus)

(Solo short turnaroundt)

 

(Interlude – Acoustic and light background: sparse drums and base, swell slide, shaker…)

Without the trees the water retreats, the earth bakes and crumbles away

Trees are the cloud machines you see, when they are gone,               few will stay

As the tall ones fall the fuel load rises             like never before seen

In the aftermath of the firestorms        Nothing in the spring

In the aftermath of the firestorms        Nothing in the spring

G                        D                   A                            /

G                        D                   A                            /     

 

(First two lines acoustic. Third line works up to a rockin beat pretty fast and continues into oblivion)

The sterilized soil will be like nothing the scientists have ever seen,

They tell me this with there own voices, wide-eyed and obscene

The results are that nothing will live, they don’t know for how long

The feedback will rule the clouds you see, the forest will be gone

(The band comes back in swelling intensity)

The feedback will rule the clouds you see, the forest will be gone

The feedback will rule the clouds you see, the forest will be gone

The feedback will rule the clouds you see, the forest will be gone

G                        D                   A                            /  

 

(Break Strain – Stacato British Invasion. Sparse and clean)

C               /             /               G             /       /        /

Dead trees, don’t store any carbon

Dead trees, emit CO2

Dead trees, are not so beautiful

What, (what, what, what) can we do?

What, (what, what, what) can we do?

What, (what, what, what)can we do?

C    /    /    /    G    /    /    /

(Increase intensity add guitar solo, blend with previous rock beat)

C    /    /    /    G    /    /    /

C    /    /    /    G    /    /    / (five more times – total 8 lines)

 

(Calm way down for the first line – then swell and blend with previous rock beat)

G             D                           A                              /

Money, motivation and innocence are the keys

How can we fix a problem that we can barely see

The momentum of ignorance is a ship on an endless sea

The momentum of ignorance is a ship on an endless sea

The momentum of ignorance is a ship on an endless sea

After the trees are gone

After the trees are gone

After the trees are gone

The momentum of ignorance                (ship on an endless sea)

The momentum of ignorance                (ship on an endless sea)

The momentum of ignorance                (ship on an endless sea)

The momentum of ignorance                (ship on an endless sea)

The momentum of ignorance                (ship on an endless sea)

G                             D                    A                           /             (ship on an endless sea)

G                             D                    A                           /             (ship on an endless sea)

G                             D                    A                           /             (ship on an endless sea)

 (Finale – speed up to ridiculous tempo, then burn the instruments)

Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CADtjw390gSOwYp%3DEASTcYuxDZpB5DOhOvOdAH39pG%3D3fnhKomA%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/c7ed434a-b1ad-e2f1-d33e-1f650deaea48%40earthlink.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/33ed82d2-9fdc-e821-1796-32bf0ffd65e2%40earthlink.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Dear Chris

Thank you for circulating this Conversation article calling for emission reduction alone as the best way to address climate change.  The authors are distinguished scientists, but their attack on geoengineering as a fantasy applies more to their own ideas. With the world spending trillions of dollars in support of their failed vision, and almost nothing on scientifically possible cooling strategies, their bombast has to be called out.

They argue the goal of net zero emissions “helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.”  This is true, but it is actually a good thing, not a reasoned criticism. A global civilization of up to ten billion humans inhabiting our planet absolutely requires technological salvation.  Otherwise we face the inevitability of social and economic and ecological collapse.  Demonising technology is an ignorant populist tactic that conceals an antihuman agenda, and one that also presents high risk of worsening mass extinction.  We do need to diminish the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.  This confected emotion is crowding out reasoned dialogue about how best to slow global warming, and ignoring the fact that ramping up decarbonisation is an ineffective, expensive and dangerous climate response.

In a breathtaking non sequitur, they falsely assert “The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it.”  No, it does not follow.  To “stop emitting more” is physically and politically impossible, and would have only marginal effect on temperature and weather.  It is a gross political overreaction to the problem, generating a polarised ideological approach to climate change.  Their argument is like saying “The threats of heart attack are the direct result of sloth and obesity. So it follows that hospitals must counsel heart attack victims to improve their diet and exercise.”  The element of truth in this statement conceals the much more important need for urgent surgery, similar to ow their argument conceals the urgent need for albedo enhancement to solve the climate crisis.

Next they argue that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach” and “humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions.” These observations are correct, but the term “licensed” is being asked to do too much work.  Popular indifference to climate change has much deeper psychosocial roots than climate activists tend to imagine.  The authors are right that the promise of net zero emissions has a purely political function of deflecting attention from effective warming responses, but they get wrong what would be effective. The intent of their attack on net zero is to somehow suggest the impossible solution of ending all combustion as soon as possible. That would only be possible with political revolution, but there is no prospect of an army providing the needed military support for such a vain and reckless objective.  Net zero is in fact an important long term objective but only as a milestone on the path toward the net negative emissions that will be needed to stabilise the climate, delivered mainly by conversion of CO2 into useful products such as soil, roads and biomass.

They give life to the myth that “if we had acted on Hansen’s testimony at the time, we would have been able to decarbonise our societies at a rate of around 2% a year.” This crying over spilt milk is a pointless exercise.  The convenience, cheapness and familiarity of fossil fuels have delivered abundant prosperity, so the idea that people could have just give these away without extremely strong reason is absurd.  And the extremely strong reasons are not there, since warming is mainly from past emissions, with annual emissions only adding about 2% to radiative forcing.

More myths follow.  They assert “The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory for those most at risk from climate change.” This is a gross exercise of Orwellian doublethink.  Paris was all spin and no substance.  It was entirely about tactical deflection, avoiding the genuine paradigm shifts that will actually be needed to repair the climate, starting with global agreement to increase albedo.  As such Paris was more cruel hoax than stunning victory, delaying and defusing the conversations about how to actually fix the climate.

One thing that most concerns me in climate policy is that physical scientists imagine they are political scientists.  Nor am I a political scientist, but my career in government and my degree in ethics does give me some perspective on this Dunning-Kruger problem.  So I am interested to explore the political economy of their idea that “instead of confront our doubts, we scientists decided to construct ever more elaborate fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.” The political science problem with this assertion is that accelerated decarbonisation is an even more egregious fantasy world than reliance on CDR for net zero.  Overcoming the comforting tendency to indulge in emotional fantasy requires a rigorous focus on logic and evidence.  Unfortunately for the views of Dyke and Watson, no genuine science supports their belief that faster decarbonisation could be a practical climate response.  Suggesting otherwise is an exercise in religious hope, pretending that the settled science of warming magically entails the acceptance that their proposed mitigation strategy is equally settled.  It is not.  Their criticism of “the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal” can entirely be used to criticise their own view, such as the ever growing absurdity of the UN calling for a halving of emissions by 2030.

They rightly observe that “BECCS would demand between 0.4 and 1.2 billion hectares of land” and is not an effective climate response.  But then they elide from this reasoned point to the crazed dagger in their scabbard, arguing that “even more ghastly, once we realise net zero will not happen in time or even at all, geoengineering – the deliberate and large scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system – will probably be invoked as the solution to limit temperature increases.”  They say nothing to justify their “ghastly” rhetoric, and indeed they could not do so in any scientific way, since increasing planetary albedo has benefits that the best evidence indicates will massively outweigh its small risks.  They are calling on us to do nothing to mitigate warming-induced extreme weather, biodiversity loss, sea level rise, political instability and systemic disruption, because their hatred of fossil fuels has blinded them to the potential practicality of global cooperation to brighten the planet. 

Calling solar radiation management “a wild idea” with “significant risks”, they confect a horrified attack on the welcome call from the US National Academies of Sciences to explore how geoengineering could be deployed and regulated. The political outrage in this view flatly ignores the simple observation that risks are lower with geoengineering than without it.  It is frankly insulting and stupid for them to derogate solar geoengineering as “highly speculative technologies” that “in fact, are no more than fairy tales.” The real highly speculative fairy tale is their conclusion that “the only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way.”  This is simply not going to happen, and the sooner climate activists wake up and enter serious dialogue about what could really keep humanity safe the better. 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/03e901d9d024%2427fe2f30%2477fa8d90%24%40btinternet.com.

[Peter Fiekowsky]

Robert, Chris, and Terry-

 

While the facts of the matter are clear, we need to honor the politics more than the facts today—because we need action, more than righteousness.

 

You have to be effective. If you're only concerned with being right and not effective, then you being right has no meaning, and the efforts you're making aren't intending to make anything better, they're just there to make you feel superior, and you're going to make things worse in the process.

 

Off the record, I'm confident those writers would agree with this:

If we want humanity to survive in a manner we’re familiar with, we need to restore historically safe CO2 levels (below 300 ppm). And it appears that we would be wise to use SRM to cool the planet as needed while we’re getting there.

Let’s be gracious and civil to the people who, by dint of their employment, must keep the UN line for stabilizing GHG levels.

It’s our job to get the UN to commit to “restore an historically safe CO2 level for future generations”. That will happen with patience and understanding.

Thank you all.
Peter

 

 

From: healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of terry spahr <tsp...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 at 3:55 PM
To: Robert Tulip <rob...@rtulip.net>
Cc: Chris Vivian <chris....@btinternet.com>, healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>, Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>, Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [HCA-list] RE: [prag] RE: Strategy

Robert 

Spot on!

Keep pushing the truth.

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/03b201d9d224%24a8d81790%24fa8846b0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Climate Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-climate-al...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-climate-alliance/CANvkJMg%3DcYBvv2zcUCj5SK764_M%2Bw%3DjHCUHaPNOdjXhTSaUszA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Ye Tao]

Despite the best of intentions, focusing on CO2 is neither right nor effective.

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2ncHreaaOiLqHHYj1Br4qAJFGXHuhm3WPjUdoFXV331kQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Dear Peter F

 

There is a moral conundrum in your comments.  You are saying, in effect, that we should do something that will not work, because people in power are utterly resistant to hearing about what will work.  Not meaning this as a personal criticism, but rather as a critique of strategic vision, for you to say “we need to honor the politics more than the facts” is the very definition of hypocrisy and corruption.  You seem to make these comments with a sort of whimsical irony, knowing how unacceptable they are, despite the Macchiavellian attraction of tactical progress.

 

To say “we need action, more than righteousness” is a recipe for climate futility, busyness with no practical outcome, a relentless slide over the tipping points.   I understand that your term ‘righteousness’ has some loaded baggage, but in this case to be right just means being scientifically correct about what is possible.  I appreciate how such views can become attractive when the sewer of politics offers no light, but climate policy requires that we step outside the muck.  Physically effective is more important than politically effective for Earth System analysis.  Get a coherent story and stick to it, accepting only scientific critique.

 

Raising albedo is a practical solution to mitigate suffering.  Due to the turpitude of politics this is cancelled from view.  You seem to take this as a counsel of despair, suggesting we should put energy and action into measures that we fully understand from basic science have no prospect of achieving their stated goals.  Sorry, but I am not willing to participate in such a cruel hoax.  Those millions of young people who have been sold the Big Lie that cutting emissions is the key to fixing the climate need to be informed that this message from IPCC has no prospect of working.  Even CDR is too small and slow to serve as an emergency response.

 

Ye Tao is entirely correct that focusing on CO2 is neither right nor effective.  To wrongly define effectiveness in terms of short term political traction, avoiding geoengineering because it is a political third rail, is like the doctor whose operation was a success but the patient died.  What is needed is a basic paradigm shift in the political debate.

 

People who proclaim one view in public and another in private, as you suggest is likely for these Conversation authors, are hypocrites who sow confusion and error.  It is quite important to weed hypocrisy out and seek consistency and clarity.

 

I don’t see the relevance of your comment about situations where “the efforts you're making aren't intending to make anything better”.  You seem to imply that is the case for advocacy of solar geoengineering deployment, but nothing could be further from the truth.  Efforts to increase albedo are entirely intended to prevent and reverse dangerous  warming.

 

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

In a breathtaking non sequitur, they falsely assert “The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it.”  No, it does not follow.  To “stop emitting more” is physically and politically impossible, and would have only marginal effect on temperature and weather.  It is a gross political overreaction to the problem, generating a polarised ideological approach to climate change.  Their argument is like saying “The threats of heart attack are the direct result of sloth and obesity. So it follows that hospitals must counsel heart attack victims to improve their diet and exercise.”  The element of truth in this statement conceals the much more important need for urgent surgery, similar to how their argument conceals the urgent need for albedo enhancement to solve the climate crisis.

Next they argue that “the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach” and “humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions.” These observations are correct, but the term “licensed” is being asked to do too much work.  Popular indifference to climate change has much deeper psychosocial roots than climate activists tend to imagine.  The authors are right that the promise of net zero emissions has a purely political function of deflecting attention from effective warming responses, but they get wrong what would be effective. The intent of their attack on net zero is to somehow suggest the impossible solution of ending all combustion as soon as possible. That would only be possible with political revolution, but there is no prospect of an army providing the needed military support for such a vain and reckless objective.  Net zero is in fact an important long term objective, but only as a milestone on the path toward the net negative emissions that will be needed to stabilise the climate, delivered mainly by conversion of CO2 into useful products such as soil, roads and biomass.

They give life to the myth that “if we had acted on Hansen’s testimony at the time, we would have been able to decarbonise our societies at a rate of around 2% a year.” This crying over spilt milk is a pointless exercise.  The convenience, cheapness and familiarity of fossil fuels have delivered abundant prosperity, so the idea that people could have just given these benefits away without extremely strong reason is absurd.  And the extremely strong reasons are not there, since warming is mainly from past emissions, with annual emissions only adding about 2% to radiative forcing.

More myths follow.  They assert “The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory for those most at risk from climate change.” This is a gross exercise of Orwellian doublethink.  Paris was all spin and no substance.  It was entirely about tactical deflection, avoiding the genuine paradigm shifts that will actually be needed to repair the climate, starting with global agreement to increase albedo.  As such Paris was more cruel hoax than stunning victory, delaying and defusing the conversations about how to actually fix the climate.

One thing that most concerns me in climate policy is that physical scientists imagine they are political scientists.  Nor am I a political scientist, but my career in government and my degree in ethics does give me some perspective on this Dunning-Kruger problem.  So I am interested to explore the political economy of their idea that “instead of confront our doubts, we scientists decided to construct ever more elaborate fantasy worlds in which we would be safe.” The political science problem with this assertion is that accelerated decarbonisation is an even more egregious fantasy world than reliance on CDR for net zero.  Overcoming the comforting tendency to indulge in emotional fantasy requires a rigorous focus on logic and evidence.  Unfortunately for the views of Dyke and Watson, no genuine science supports their belief that faster decarbonisation could be a practical climate response.  Suggesting otherwise is an exercise in religious hope, pretending that the settled science of warming magically entails the acceptance that their proposed mitigation strategy is equally settled.  It is not.  Their criticism of “the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal” in IPCC models can entirely be used to criticise their own view, such as the ever growing absurdity of the UN calling for a halving of emissions by 2030.

[Clive Elsworth]

All anti-geoengineers should be congratulated for the removal in recent years of the unintended geoengineering that, until recently, was cooling the oceans, namely sulfur dioxide emissions from ships. That is the exact same substance that is already there from phytoplankton emissions of dimethyl sulfide or DMS. (For the scientists: Yes, DMS itself is a byproduct of something with an even longer chemical name – Dimethylsulfoniopropionate). The critical point is that DMS oxidises in the air to form sulfur dioxide, SO₂.

 

How does SO₂ cool the oceans? SO₂ further oxidises in the air to form sulfuric acid, which is a hygroscopic substance that attracts water vapour from the air. At altitude, where the air is cold enough to be supersaturated (100%+ humidity) and together with other marine aerosols such as sea salt: That sulfuric acid helps nucleate cloud droplets.

 

Enhanced marine sulphur emissions offset global warming and impact rainfall - B. S. Grandey & C. Wang – 2015: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13055

 

Every molecule of water vapour that condenses to become part of a low-lying cloud droplet over the ocean goes from strongly warming the oceans, to cooling them overall (outside polar regions). That’s because low-lying (e.g. stratocumulus) clouds reflect away more heat than they trap. (In the polar regions that works only for a couple of months in mid-summer.)

 

Peter: Yes, that’s righteous too. Sometimes I think it’s worth it when calling out harmful actions.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/00bc01d9d265%24bb19a450%24314cecf0%24%40rtulip.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Oswald

 

Risks of solar geoengineering can be addressed through the creation of an international albedo union, a scientific organisation tasked to increase planetary reflectivity by overseeing and coordinating research and deployment of technologies to brighten the planet.

 

Placing geoengineering into such an international governance framework would be somewhat analogous to the role of the International Monetary Fund in global finance, with its mandate to help stabilise monetary systems and enhance cooperation. An albedo union would similarly stabilise the climate through agreed cooperative action, with benefits for peace and security.

 

Your speculation that such an intergovernmental scientific body might have “the rest of the world at their mercy” can be addressed through policy safeguards.  I suppose we can imagine a Dr Strangelove takeover if we try hard enough, but this is a weak argument against discussion of such a benign body, which would be entirely devoted to beneficial action. 

 

The IMF would seem to carry greater risks of the dramatic scenario you paint, but in reality it has largely functioned as an efficient technocratic agency despite many criticisms.  I do not believe that an albedo agency would face the level of risk of the IMF, as there is a global interest to restore albedo.  The main sensible concern I have heard about restoring planetary albedo is the risk of some negative effects on the monsoon, but my understanding is that targeted deployment of MCB alongside an initially micro dose of SAI could enable beneficial results for all.  That is exactly the sort of question an albedo organisation would study.

 

With a mandate limited to albedo, this albedo governance arrangement could rapidly be recognised as providing essential security infrastructure, with immense benefits in reducing weather extremes and mitigating climate risk through practical global cooperation.

 

Regards, Robert

 

From: oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 12:02 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net; 'Peter Fiekowsky' <pfi...@gmail.com>; 'terry spahr' <tsp...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Chris Vivian' <chris....@btinternet.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: [HCA-list] RE: [prag] RE: Strategy

 

Robert,

 

the main arguments aginst GeoEngineering are

 

• Risk of  negative side-effects
• Risk of ineffectivity
• Risk of non-terminability

 

The first two can be solved with proper research and adequate funding.

 

The third one is a bit more tricky. It « fires » if and when the method works as it should (Risk 1 and 2 are ok) and does actually contribute to cooling. In this case the world may become dependent on the continued application, which gives those who control it power, with the rest of the world at their mercy. It is therefore one of the criteria to be applied to all GE methods. Are they terminable without risk? I am convinced that methods which do not fulfil this criterion are off the agenda of all UN bodies, because the governance of unterminable methods is non-solvable. This is a very strong argument IMHO.

 

This is what I want to do with the term «GeoRestoration». Restrict the methods we propose to terminable ones. Limit its scope and make it clear from the start that it is a temporary application which can be stopped any time without harm.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von rob...@rtulip.net
Gesendet: Samstag, 19. August 2023 15:03
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'Peter Fiekowsky' <pfi...@gmail.com>; 'terry spahr' <tsp...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Chris Vivian' <chris....@btinternet.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: RE: [HCA-list] RE: [prag] RE: Strategy

 

Oswald, thank you for introducing some German idealism into this conversation with Fichte’s dialectical model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  Fichte’s triadic causal framework for history derived from Kant and Hegel and has an elegant strategic logic as a theory of change.  With apologies to those who have little interest in philosophy, these ideas have strong practical application.

 

However, it is not correct to describe geoengineering as the antithesis of emission reduction as you suggest. A better understanding of the predicament is that business as usual is the thesis and stabilising the climate by cutting emissions is the antithesis.  These are genuinely in opposition to each other, whereas geoengineering and emission reduction are complementary. 

 

From the opposition between the thesis of business as usual and its antithesis of decarbonisation the question is how to find a synthesis.  Such an integrating picture is essential, to overcome the polarisation that prevents cooling.  The emerging political synthesis requires that a means to achieve climate stability must be found that admits the legitimate concerns of business as usual about prosperity and stability.  I submit that only solar geoengineering, together with a longer term carbon repair program, offers such an integrating synthesis. 

 

The triad can be crudely exaggerated as thesis - economy; antithesis -no economy; synthesis - revised economy.

 

A problem with this model is that the climate action movement is caught up with its antithetical vision of accelerating decarbonisation through emission reduction alone, to be achieved by fomenting conflict with the fossil fuel industry.  The impossibility of rapid emission cuts should be readily apparent in view of how it is more honoured in the breach than the observance, meaning, following Hamlet, that people actually think it is better not to cut emissions, given the benefits they get from emitting.  This analysis is supported by the projection that on current policies emissions are likely to be higher in 2050 than now.  This situation should invite dialogue about finding a possible compromise between the warring sides, bringing together conflicting social groups.  

 

Engineering as a field is well known to business as usual and offers the ability to serve as a bridge across the climate policy chasm. We will need to actively engineer the climate in order to achieve a smooth landing from the massive instability caused by excess atmospheric carbon.  This need for engineering as the basis of an integral vision can challenge your suggestion to replace geoengineering with georestoration as a strategic policy vision.  Geoengineering will be needed to regulate and manage planetary weather for as long as global civilization lasts.  This is our great emerging scientific and engineering challenge, offering hope to negotiate the coming crisis without collapse.

 

The only reason to exclude the concept of engineering from the climate repair and restoration agenda is the inability to escape the flawed antithetical vision of sudden achievement of a low carbon world.  Engineering is the only way to achieve a cooler planet. Once we accept that cooling without climate engineering is impossible, we are forced to think about how to backtrack from the confrontational IPCC approach, by compromising with the existing economy to find a reconciling path.  This means allowing that a slower energy transition can deliver climate stability if we apply an engineering strategy to brighten and cool the planet, giving time to address the carbon problem. 

 

Another important historical way to see this dialectical process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis is to say capitalism is the thesis, communism is the antithesis, and a new integrating synthesis is still emerging.  That is a new form of dialectical materialism that presents a useful lens for climate policy, observing that decarbonisation has modified the old communist idea of a united front of progressive forces combining to defeat capitalist reaction. This model explains why engineering has been wrongly demonised as the domineering tool of reaction, when in fact engineering has a high moral purpose as the integral path to mitigate catastrophic impacts of climate change.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 9:17 PM
To: 'Peter Fiekowsky' <pfi...@gmail.com>; 'terry spahr' <tsp...@gmail.com>; 'Robert Tulip' <rob...@rtulip.net>
Cc: 'Chris Vivian' <chris....@btinternet.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: [HCA-list] RE: [prag] RE: Strategy

 

Dear all,

 

according to Fichte thesis and antithesis are valuable preconditions of a synthesis, which brings us one level further.

 

If emission reduction is the thesis and GeoEngineering is the antithesis then we can progress to synthesis, which is of course both.

 

But not only both, that would not be a higher level. We have to keep both apart and give each it’s own room. If we mix both, we do not get a higher level but a terrible conundrum, which is what these three scientists rightfully complain about. To do this we need to leave the term GeoEngineering behind us. I will call it GeoRestoration.

 

How about this :

 

• Mitigation is the development path to a new, carbon-free world.
• GeoRestoration is a cleanup job for the damage done.

 

With this definition GeoRestoration is limited in time and space. It’s only role is to remove GHG/restore albedo to pre-industrial levels. Also mitigation is limited, it does not have to worry about the warming already present, but concentrate on a new carbon-free future. Mitigation will do 100% of this job, GeoRestoration (GR) will not interfere with this. GR is therefore limited to methods which can be stopped when the job is done. This would help in demystifying our approach, taking the scare out of it for normal people who are not involved in scientific debate.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CAEr4H2ncHreaaOiLqHHYj1Br4qAJFGXHuhm3WPjUdoFXV331kQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/026e01d9d29d%24779bfbf0%2466d3f3d0%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001b01d9d2a5%24b77427e0%24265c77a0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Tom Goreau]

The Free Rider problem is the core of government failure to deal with climate change, as long as people continue to make money by destroying the planet’s future for everybody.

 

While there are many excellent global thinkers on the UN staff, they are completely shackled because all decisions are made by archaic nation state politicians covering their assets, blaming somebody else for their own problems, beggaring their neighbors, and avoiding any financial responsibility for past crimes against the planet or its people.

 

The UN Charter begins with “We, the people of the world” need to rebuild the planet economically wrecked by World War II (and now climate change), but it was immediately hijacked by the politicians of nation states to mean “we the political rulers” who claim to speak for them, with or without their assent.

 

Votes in the names of their people are made by cronies appointed by the ilk of trump, putin, mbs, and lesser despots.

 

A truly planetary solution is needed, and the UN is the only global problem solving agency we have, but it’s capacity was aborted at birth by politicians, primitive nationalists, and religious fanatics of all stripes who benefit from chaos, who completely prevented the UN from fulfilling any global mission.

 

The fossil fuel producers have systematically used the consensus rules at 27 UNCCCC COPS to block all solutions and let climate change fester to preserve their filthy profits.

 

From: oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 5:04 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net <rob...@rtulip.net>
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>, 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>, 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>, 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: Strategy

Hello Robert,

 

what you describe is the ideal solution, I could subscribe to it, but…

 

… our world does not work along ideals. The UN is a rather weak organization, blocked by powerful entities which fight each other. The UN cannot organize a world government body which would be needed to sustain such solution. Therefore the UN will never propose a solution which needs a central agency running it.

 

To overcome GW we would need smaller entities operating privately within a regulatory framework. Such framework can be delivered by the UN plus other national bodies, there is no need for a new body. The responsibility must be shared by private business and the state. We need many players to do this job, many shoulders to distribute the responsibility, a lot of money paying many people who then advocate the solution because it provides their income. All of this takes a lot of time, we are just beginning to work on this.

 

The COVID crisis provided a great sample how the globe can react swiftly to an immediate threat. It was pharma industry, governments and many individuals pulling together to fight the virus. However there is a huge difference between the COVID crisis and the climate crisis. In COVID all individuals had to obey the rules and later get the injection or run a high personal risk of infection. There was no easy way out. In the climate crisis there is an easy way out: Just deny its existence or deny that you have to participate in the solution (blame it on someone else) and you get a free ride. Thats what most people, enterprises and even governments do, at least to some extent. The free-rider problem kills all well-meant motivation and makes the problem almost intractable.

 

Still, in the end reason will prevail. We will do MCB and EAMO and OIF. Start small, work on it, get bigger, loose some fights, win some more… and never give up!

 

Thanks for your time😊

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/049a01d9d2b3%2492bae0c0%24b830a240%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/002e01d9d345%244319f8c0%24c94dea40%24%40hispeed.ch.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Oswald

 

An International Albedo Union is entirely possible and necessary.  It would be an international body quite similar to many other such bodies – for finance, weather, trade, geology, astronomy, chemicals. health and a myriad of other topics where cooperation is required.  It absolutely does not require a world government as you suggest.  Like the IMF and World Bank, it could be established by a new Bretton Woods conference.  I can’t imagine why you think it would be so difficult, except that strange psychological blockages have generated a collective human death wish that cancels this whole topic from public view.  Such a body would provide the regulatory framework for smaller private entities.  I don’t understand how you think “the UN” would provide this regulatory function without a specifically tasked body to govern work on albedo, since they don’t have one now.  The IPCC has accepted a mandate to focus on the carbon aspects of climate, which could continue alongside a new body specifically tasked to work on albedo.

 

Regards,

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: oswald....@hispeed.ch <oswald....@hispeed.ch>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 7:04 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: Strategy

 

Hello Robert,

 

what you describe is the ideal solution, I could subscribe to it, but…

 

… our world does not work along ideals. The UN is a rather weak organization, blocked by powerful entities which fight each other. The UN cannot organize a world government body which would be needed to sustain such solution. Therefore the UN will never propose a solution which needs a central agency running it.

 

To overcome GW we would need smaller entities operating privately within a regulatory framework. Such framework can be delivered by the UN plus other national bodies, there is no need for a new body. The responsibility must be shared by private business and the state. We need many players to do this job, many shoulders to distribute the responsibility, a lot of money paying many people who then advocate the solution because it provides their income. All of this takes a lot of time, we are just beginning to work on this.

 

The COVID crisis provided a great sample how the globe can react swiftly to an immediate threat. It was pharma industry, governments and many individuals pulling together to fight the virus. However there is a huge difference between the COVID crisis and the climate crisis. In COVID all individuals had to obey the rules and later get the injection or run a high personal risk of infection. There was no easy way out. In the climate crisis there is an easy way out: Just deny its existence or deny that you have to participate in the solution (blame it on someone else) and you get a free ride. Thats what most people, enterprises and even governments do, at least to some extent. The free-rider problem kills all well-meant motivation and makes the problem almost intractable.

 

Still, in the end reason will prevail. We will do MCB and EAMO and OIF. Start small, work on it, get bigger, loose some fights, win some more… and never give up!

 

Thanks for your time😊

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von rob...@rtulip.net
Gesendet: Samstag, 19. August 2023 17:41
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: RE: Strategy

 

Oswald

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/049a01d9d2b3%2492bae0c0%24b830a240%24%40rtulip.net.

[Tom Goreau]

IPCC’s global mandate should have been about anthropogenic interference with climate per se, but it has effectively been narrowly defined as that part of climate change that is directly influenced by GHG management alone, which is a big mistake that needs to be rectified.

 

Convincing the world’s governments to do so is glacially slow (no pun intended, Greenland might melt before they understand the problems and turn serious about tackling them instead of avoiding them).

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/05c801d9d4f6%247d47a170%2477d6e450%24%40rtulip.net.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Hi Oswald

 

People do see the climate crisis as important – that is the main reason why according to IEA the world is subsidising clean energy by several hundred billion dollars each year.  That scale of expenditure demonstrates clear political and economic readiness to give things up in favour of the climate, contrary to your assertion.  The problem is that these massive subsidies have almost no cooling impact, whereas small expenditure to increase albedo offers strong potential to stabilise the climate while the carbon problem is gradually fixed.

 

This discrepancy between expenditure and need is what is known in paradigm theory as an anomaly.  The agreed means can’t cause the desired ends.  Why spend trillions on something that won’t work and nothing on something that would work?  It is because people are captured by a false narrative.  Climate policy is in crisis.  We need a scientific revolution to shift the dominant climate goal from net zero emissions to net zero heating.  Exposing and refuting the delusional story of the magical power of renewables can bring rapid demand for a change of policy, encapsulated in the need to establish an International Albedo Union.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: oswald.petersen via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 1:07 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: [prag] AW: Strategy

 

Dear Robert,

 

you are of course right that such a body could exist. The question is : Will it exist? I do not think that that is likely, not for psychological reasons, but for very factual ones.

 

1. The opinion that the climate crisis is the most important issue of all, or at least an important one,  is not shared by most politicians. Most politicians, even most people, have other more pressing issues on their agenda. In Switzerland the climate ranges 5 on the scale of most pressing issues.
2. There is no readiness to give up anything in favour of the climate.
3. There are no or too little financial incentives.

 

We can go in this debate forever. I think that new things grow bottom up, they are not implemented top down. Governments are here to regulate, but whatever they regulate must at first grow in the private sector. Governments can provide incentives, but they cannot and never will takeover the real work.

 

I am afraid we must do that ourselves.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/001c01d9d50a%24596fd1f0%240c4f75d0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Ye Tao]

Dear Robert and Oswald.

2 comments

1) " people who then advocate the solution because it provides their income" is a recipe for disaster. I believe the current problems are created through this approach. We need people to advocate for solutions even if doing so would hurt their own financial and health well-being.  This is is the only way to differentiate between veritable solutions from greenwashing businesses.  I trust you are not counting on OIF and EAMO to provide an income.

2) "International Albedo Union" is not ideal because it emphasizes the nation state framework the older generation grow up under.  And some "International" organization are more international than others.  "Planetary" or "Earth" might work better.

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/05c801d9d4f6%247d47a170%2477d6e450%24%40rtulip.net.

[Clive Elsworth]

Oswald

 

Despite the flurry of emails explaining in detail why 100% renewables is a delusion, you say: “Switching to renewables is not wrong. In the contrary, it is the only way out in the long term.” Can you please say on what grounds?

 

Do you reject the points made by the mining experts? e.g. the Simon Michaux interview, and Mark Mills?, e.g. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion  

 

Do you reject the criticisms of Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewables claim, by 21 leading energy researchers, published in Scientific American in 2017?  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/landmark-100-percent-renewable-energy-study-flawed-say-21-leading-experts/ who concluded:

Jacobson’s findings on the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a full transition to wind, water, and solar “are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved. In contrast, the weight of the evidence suggests that a broad portfolio of energy options will help facilitate an affordable transition to a near-zero emission energy system.

 

John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

 

What do you do?  Does your opinion matter? I’d say it does.

 

Clive

 

From: oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:47 AM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: AW: [prag] AW: Strategy

 

Hello Robert,

 

yes there is concern in the population about the climate crisis. But there is little readiness to sacrifice anything.

 

In your analysis there are three major flaws.

 

• Switching to renewables is not wrong. In the contrary, it is the only way out in the long term.
• GW is not caused by albedo loss. It is caused by GHG. Albedo loss is merely one of the many negative symptoms of GW. To overcome GW we must remove anthropogenic GHG from the air, this will cure all symptoms of this terrible disease, including albedo loss.
• Large, global processes, both technical as well as social, cannot be created top-down. The governing agencies can provide regulation and incentives, but the will-power to do things comes from the bottom, from individuals and companies. If it does not come from there, it does not happen.

 

We all agree that it is an urgent matter, of course.

 

Have a good evening

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/00ce01d9d56c%2476703670%246350a350%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001e01d9d58d%24a4ecd5f0%24eec681d0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Thanks Oswald.  Your language here is exaggerated.  You have read things into what I said.

 

I never said switching to renewables is wrong.  For you to claim that is a “major flaw” in my reasoning is far too simplistic.  I have only questioned subsidising clean energy with trillions of dollars when there are much cheaper and more effective ways to achieve the stated climate objectives.  My point is that renewables cannot be a major part of an emergency climate response, even if they have wonderful economic and environmental benefits, because stopping short term warming is not something that renewables can make much difference for. You may be right that switching to renewables is “the only way out in the long term”, but there is also the possibility that GHG removal will ramp up to a level that enables ongoing emissions, for example by conversion of atmospheric and marine carbon to useful infrastructure at immense scale.

 

Nor does your point about the cause of warming point to a flaw in my reasoning.  The cause of warming is only part of the story regarding what to do about it.  Models have shown that increasing albedo could cut world temperature by two degrees in fifty years even with ongoing emissions.  You are wrong to imply albedo loss does not cause warming, since it quite obviously does, even if this is a secondary cause induced by GHG emissions.  A darker planet is a warmer planet, and we have darkened by almost 2% in the last two decades.  It seems clear to me that albedo will soon become a far more tractable and effective cooling lever than carbon. The causes of ice ages is an instructive lesson for this, with albedo the driver of CO2 change.

 

Global political processes require a combination of top down and bottom up causation.  For example our work in this discussion is entirely bottom up.  I don’t recall suggesting an international albedo union would do more than provide top down regulation and incentives.  That is exactly what it needs to do, so that expert firms and organisations have the permission and ability to implement good ideas to cool the planet. A global body would also have a research and coordination role to support effective regulation, while implementation of activities should be by a competitive market where funds are provided for activities with the highest cooling return on investment.  An albedo governance agency should steer not row, providing and ensuring strategic guidance and direction rather than delivering services.

 

Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: oswald.petersen via Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:47 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Subject: AW: [prag] AW: Strategy

 

Hello Robert,

 

yes there is concern in the population about the climate crisis. But there is little readiness to sacrifice anything.

 

In your analysis there are three major flaws.

 

• Switching to renewables is not wrong. In the contrary, it is the only way out in the long term.
• GW is not caused by albedo loss. It is caused by GHG. Albedo loss is merely one of the many negative symptoms of GW. To overcome GW we must remove anthropogenic GHG from the air, this will cure all symptoms of this terrible disease, including albedo loss.
• Large, global processes, both technical as well as social, cannot be created top-down. The governing agencies can provide regulation and incentives, but the will-power to do things comes from the bottom, from individuals and companies. If it does not come from there, it does not happen.

 

We all agree that it is an urgent matter, of course.

 

Have a good evening

 

Oswald Petersen

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/00ce01d9d56c%2476703670%246350a350%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/001e01d9d58d%24a4ecd5f0%24eec681d0%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Douglas Grandt]

Folks,

Can this debate be simplified? In Gantt Chart format …

A. EITHER

|   l o n g   t e r m   t r a n s I t I o n   >>>  |

         = OR =

| urgent intervention |

 

B. BOTH 

|   l o n g   t e r m   t r a n s I t I o n   >>>  |

         = AND =

| urgent intervention |

Seems to me this is the fundamental disconnect in this thread.

My 2¢

Doug Grandt

 

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Aug 23, 2023, at 6:59 AM, oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



Hi Clive,

 

renewable energy is the only way to a sustainable future, where all production is based on goods which are either endless (e.g. sunshine) or recyclable. If we have a problem with supply of some components we will have to replace them. But the amounts are small, in comparison to fossile energy, because the energy source itself is not consumed in the process. It is just some part of the machinery which needs to be replaced from time to time. I cannot see a serious challenge from that side.

 

We can of course discuss adding nuclear energy to the future enery mix, if it is safe and economic. I doubt that, but that is another discussion.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

Von: 'Clive Elsworth' via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. August 2023 11:54
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Betreff: RE: [prag] AW: Strategy

 

Oswald

 

Despite the flurry of emails explaining in detail why 100% renewables is a delusion, you say: “Switching to renewables is not wrong. In the contrary, it is the only way out in the long term.” Can you please say on what grounds?

 

Do you reject the points made by the mining experts? e.g. the Simon Michaux interview, and Mark Mills?, e.g. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion  

 

Do you reject the criticisms of Mark Jacobson’s 100% renewables claim, by 21 leading energy researchers, published in Scientific American in 2017?  https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/landmark-100-percent-renewable-energy-study-flawed-say-21-leading-experts/ who concluded:

Jacobson’s findings on the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of a full transition to wind, water, and solar “are not supported by adequate and realistic analysis and do not provide a reliable guide to whether and at what cost such a transition might be achieved. In contrast, the weight of the evidence suggests that a broad portfolio of energy options will help facilitate an affordable transition to a near-zero emission energy system.

 

John Maynard Keynes said: “When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

 

What do you do?  Does your opinion matter? I’d say it does.

 

Clive

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001e01d9d58d%24a4ecd5f0%24eec681d0%24%40hispeed.ch.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/06ad01d9d5a7%24afc46a00%240f4d3e00%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001501d9d5b0%240e0c7c80%242a257580%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Clive Elsworth]

Oswald

 

> But the amounts are small, in comparison to fossil energy, because the energy source itself is not consumed in the process.

‘Small in comparison’ does not make the amount of ore that needs to be dug up small – for a 100% energy transition. Indeed, it's so large that there is nowhere near enough mining capacity to supply the needed metals.

 

That is the point made by the mining experts. Do you think they are wrong, and there is in fact ample mining capacity?

 

If so, please say so.

 

Clive

 

 

From: oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:54 AM
To: 'Clive Elsworth' <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>; rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: AW: [prag] AW: Strategy

 

Hi Clive,

 

renewable energy is the only way to a sustainable future, where all production is based on goods which are either endless (e.g. sunshine) or recyclable. If we have a problem with supply of some components we will have to replace them. But the amounts are small, in comparison to fossile energy, because the energy source itself is not consumed in the process. It is just some part of the machinery which needs to be replaced from time to time. I cannot see a serious challenge from that side.

 

We can of course discuss adding nuclear energy to the future enery mix, if it is safe and economic. I doubt that, but that is another discussion.

 

Regards

 

Oswald Petersen

AMR AG

Atmospheric Methane Removal AG

Lärchenstr. 5

CH 8280 Kreuzlingen

Tel: +41-71-6887514

Mob: +49-177-2734245

https://amr.earth

https://cool-planet.earth

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/06ad01d9d5a7%24afc46a00%240f4d3e00%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001501d9d5b0%240e0c7c80%242a257580%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Douglas Grandt]

Folks (Part 2),

As for top down vs bottom up strategy and IAU vs none, wouldn’t it be beneficial to strive for all in an orchestrated public debate without pre-judgement as a means of raising awareness and broadening the deliberation, if only to elevate the urgency?

Just thinking out loud,

Doug

Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)

On Aug 23, 2023, at 7:33 AM, Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com> wrote:

Folks,

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Ye

 

I disagree that Oswald’s call for " people who then advocate the solution because it provides their income" is a recipe for disaster.  While you are right that this approach has created problems, notably with fraudulent and exploitative practices, this gets to the heart of capitalism versus socialism as economic models.  My view is that the competitive incentive of capitalist profit has to remain a primary driver of creative dynamism and innovation, whereas socialist models have shown themselves to be impractical except where there is clear need for public monopoly.  There is no doubt capitalism requires much stronger and better regulation than currently exists, and that some industries are better off in state control.  However, there needs to be much more debate about where geoengineering sits on that spectrum.  There will be an array of services supporting albedo enhancement which will need market incentives.  While the world community will have to cooperate to define the permissions and goals, there is no reason why such a governance framework should exclude profitable enterprises with their inbuilt incentive for advocacy.

 

On your criticism of the nation state framework, I fear you are a thousand years ahead of your time.  Albedo enhancement requires an incremental evolutionary approach, working within existing systems, even while recognising the merits of eventually transforming those systems into something better.

[Ye Tao]

HI Robert,

Thanks for responding to my comments.   I understand where you come from.  Empirical observation does indeed show that capitalistic profit chasing is capable of driving dynamism and innovation.   However, this observation does not logically lead to that "socialism or more socialistic incarnations of capitalism are incapable of dynamic innovation".  Why capitalism seems to out-compete less expansionist models could simply be due to first-mover advantage;  it is natural for unfettered capitalism to arise first, out of chaos, compared to more regulated forms, due to an "activation cost" associated with the latter until firm establishment.

There are also mechanisms that would make enterprises run with socialist internal structures to out-compete shareholder profit-driven ones.   Not having to deplete funds to pay top executives ridiculous packages, for example, increases resources for the next round of R&D.   Worker-owned enterprises would also be more resilient to crises; a number of co-owners might be willing to work for free until better times.  However, building an isolated number of such enterprises in the wrong sector may hurt the general necessary goal of degrowth due to Jevons paradox.

Cheers,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/05ef01d9d709%24a0a78170%24e1f68450%24%40rtulip.net.

[Robert Chris]

Hi Oswald, RobertT and Ye

This distinction between capitalism and socialism is unhelpful.  Let me start by provocatively declaring that capitalism is in its death throes.  It is the primary cause of climate change and it will be a casualty of the restoration of climatic equilibrium. Whether that is arrived at by humanity adapting its behaviours and moving away from capitalism or nature pulling the rug from under its feet, remains to be seen.

To explain this I must first note that these two words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have become labels that are used somewhat carelessly.  Capitalism is now seen as the expression of personal freedom, the means by which the spirit of innovation and progress is unleashed.  Socialism is imbued with the sense of state control and the loss of personal freedom.  In short, capitalism good, socialism bad.  But capitalism does not equate to freedom and socialism is a term that has many meanings but doesn't necessarily have to mean state control of everything and the widespread loss of personal freedom.

Only hermits have total freedom.  If you live in society with other humans your freedom is constrained.  The laws of every nation are primarily directed at limiting personal freedom for the benefit of the wider community.  Even in capitalist economies, which is more or less everywhere now, except perhaps for Bhutan, businesses are constrained by law and their freedom curtailed.  Taxation, regulation, employee rights, the list is endless.  Capitalism is an economic concept about the relationship between capital and labour and it is helpful to limit its use to that domain to avoid confusing it with social policies that are not primarily economic.

The reason that capitalism is doomed is because at its core is the notion of unending growth.  Capitalism cannot exist in a no or de-growth world.  The reason for this is simple to grasp.  Those with capital to invest do so because they will get a return on their investment.  For there to be a return the investment has to make a profit.  For their to be a profit the total of revenues has to exceed the total of costs.  When that dynamic is extended across the entire for-profit economy, the only way for the aggregate of revenues continuously to exceed the aggregate of costs is if there is economic growth.  If there's no growth, the profits from past activities will have nowhere to be invested and the owners of capital will get no value from their accumulated profits, have no reason to invest and stagnation ensues, confidence collapses and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

Systemically, even the generosity of billionaire philanthropists stimulates further growth.  Their grants are used to improve the well-being of others less well-off, and usually those considerably less well-off who are suffering deprivation or disease.  Improving their lives enables them to consume more than they otherwise would and this increases economic activity to generate further growth.  Despite their altruistic intentions, this also serves the philanthropists' financially because it sustains confidence in economic growth and that sustains the value of their assets.

This whole structure is predicated on the notion that more is better.  Whatever your station in life, whatever your personal circumstances, being able to consume more of whatever it is that you want to consume, is a way of you expressing your personal identity, and to the extent that you are limited in that ambition it is an infringement of your personal freedom.  There is no sense in which having enough could be a source of contentment.  Happiness only comes from having more.

Hopefully, I don't need to explain why the constant quest for more even when one already has enough, is neither a route to happiness nor environmentally or economically sustainable.  That's why capitalism is doomed.

I should stress that I am absolutely not anti-capitalist.  Capitalism has been the driver of extraordinary advances in human well-being over the last several hundred years.  But it has come at a price - climate change and colonialism and its legacy are two outstanding examples of the market failures induced by capitalism not internalising the true costs of economic activity.  The issue now is that we have to come to terms with the fact, and I think it is a fact, that capitalism has been so successful that it has outgrown itself.  To put it somewhat crudely, there comes a time when if you keep defecating on your own doorstep, you can no longer get out of the house.

So, as this discussion proceeds, please do not equate capitalism with freedom or socialism with chains, and do not imagine that an economic model that is dependent on continued growth is indefinitely sustainable.  Capitalism is a protean concept and has had many variations through time.  Its current incarnation, the neoliberalsim introduced by Thatcher and Reagan, is a particularly virulent and egregious form and it is no wonder that it has led to an extraordinary acceleration in the ills from unfettered growth and the market failures referred to above.  Whether it can be adapted to retain its positive aspects and delink it from the need for forever growth, is an open question.  I suspect that as such a system emerges, as it surely will, it won't really be capitalism in its established Marxian sense, even though it might still carry that label as a comfort blanket for those struggling to come to terms with change.

Behind all this is another question worth considering.  What is the value of progress and what is a fair price for it?  That question needs to be considered in the context of the longue durée of human civilisation.

Behind all that comes the realisation that climate change can only be approached from a systems perspective.  It is not a technological problem, nor a knowledge problem, nor a political problem nor, nor, nor.  It is all of those combined and they cannot be disentangled.

Regards

Robert

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f487ba36-d4f7-2c80-e2b0-7db2a7522ae9%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Oswald,

The problems we are working to solve are beyond the capabilities of profit-centered mechanisms, especially amidst an accelerating global shifting away from a Western-led and West-benefiting system.  Better meet the future where it is going than trying to block an unstoppable trend. There is considerable scope for re-imagining the future.

By the way, I see no evidence of functional democracy where we live, and citizen satisfaction regarding government performance often score cross-sectionally well below those in so-called autocracies.  Similar results are found longitudinally, and uniformly in former dictatorships we were able to replace with "democratically-elected" governments.  I am not an expert, but can recommend Jeffrey Sachs on these issues.

Ye

On 8/25/2023 5:14 AM, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:

Dear all,

 

I don’t think that a general debate on socialism or capitalism is helpful. We have to deal with the world as is. In the capitalist part where we live politics are driven by economic interest. Not by truth. Therefore each change needs economic drivers.

 

Things are a little different in China or Russia, where the word of the leader has more weight than here. But we don’t have the telephone number of the dictators involved… I would recommend we stick to the Western, capitalist, democratic world for now.

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

 

 

Von: atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Robert Chris

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. August 2023 08:46
An: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; rob...@rtulip.net; oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Betreff: Re: Strategy

 

Hi Oswald, RobertT and Ye

This distinction between capitalism and socialism is unhelpful.  Let me start by provocatively declaring that capitalism is in its death throes.  It is the primary cause of climate change and it will be a casualty of the restoration of climatic equilibrium. Whether that is arrived at by humanity adapting its behaviours and moving away from capitalism or nature pulling the rug from under its feet, remains to be seen.

To explain this I must first note that these two words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have become labels that are used somewhat carelessly.  Capitalism is now seen as the expression of personal freedom, the means by which the spirit of innovation and progress is unleashed.  Socialism is imbued with the sense of state control and the loss of personal freedom.  In short, capitalism good, socialism bad.  But capitalism does not equate to freedom and socialism is a term that has many meanings but doesn't necessarily have to mean state control of everything and the widespread loss of personal freedom.

Only hermits have total freedom.  If you live in society with other humans your freedom is constrained.  The laws of every nation are primarily directed at limiting personal freedom for the benefit of the wider community.  Even in capitalist economies, which is more or less everywhere now, except perhaps for Bhutan, businesses are constrained by law and their freedom curtailed.  Taxation, regulation, employee rights, the list is endless.  Capitalism is an economic concept about the relationship between capital and labour and it is helpful to limit its use to that domain to avoid confusing it with social policies that are not primarily economic.

The reason that capitalism is doomed is because at its core is the notion of unending growth.  Capitalism cannot exist in a no or de-growth world.  The reason for this is simple to grasp.  Those with capital to invest do so because they will get a return on their investment.  For there to be a return the investment has to make a profit.  For their to be a profit the total of revenues has to exceed the total of costs.  When that dynamic is extended across the entire for-profit economy, the only way for the aggregate of revenues continuously to exceed the aggregate of costs is if there is economic growth.  If there's no growth, the profits from past activities will have nowhere to be invested and the owners of capital will get no value from their accumulated profits, have no reason to invest and stagnation ensues, confidence collapses and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

Systemically, even the generosity of billionaire philanthropists stimulates further growth.  Their grants are used to improve the well-being of others less well-off, and usually those considerably less well-off who are suffering deprivation or disease.  Improving their lives enables them to consume more than they otherwise would and this increases economic activity to generate further growth.  Despite their altruistic intentions, this also serves the philanthropists' financially because it sustains confidence in economic growth and that sustains the value of their assets.

This whole structure is predicated on the notion that more is better.  Whatever your station in life, whatever your personal circumstances, being able to consume more of whatever it is that you want to consume, is a way of you expressing your personal identity, and to the extent that you are limited in that ambition it is an infringement of your personal freedom.  There is no sense in which having enough could be a source of contentment.  Happiness only comes from having more.

Hopefully, I don't need to explain why the constant quest for more even when one already has enough, is neither a route to happiness nor environmentally or economically sustainable.  That's why capitalism is doomed.

I should stress that I am absolutely not anti-capitalist.  Capitalism has been the driver of extraordinary advances in human well-being over the last several hundred years.  But it has come at a price - climate change and colonialism and its legacy are two outstanding examples of the market failures induced by capitalism not internalising the true costs of economic activity.  The issue now is that we have to come to terms with the fact, and I think it is a fact, that capitalism has been so successful that it has outgrown itself.  To put it somewhat crudely, there comes a time when if you keep defecating on your own doorstep, you can no longer get out of the house.

So, as this discussion proceeds, please do not equate capitalism with freedom or socialism with chains, and do not imagine that an economic model that is dependent on continued growth is indefinitely sustainable.  Capitalism is a protean concept and has had many variations through time.  Its current incarnation, the neoliberalsim introduced by Thatcher and Reagan, is a particularly virulent and egregious form and it is no wonder that it has led to an extraordinary acceleration in the ills from unfettered growth and the market failures referred to above.  Whether it can be adapted to retain its positive aspects and delink it from the need for forever growth, is an open question.  I suspect that as such a system emerges, as it surely will, it won't really be capitalism in its established Marxian sense, even though it might still carry that label as a comfort blanket for those struggling to come to terms with change.

Behind all this is another question worth considering.  What is the value of progress and what is a fair price for it?  That question needs to be considered in the context of the longue durée of human civilisation.

Behind all that comes the realisation that climate change can only be approached from a systems perspective.  It is not a technological problem, nor a knowledge problem, nor a political problem nor, nor, nor.  It is all of those combined and they cannot be disentangled.

Regards

Robert

 

On 25/08/2023 06:30, Ye Tao wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f487ba36-d4f7-2c80-e2b0-7db2a7522ae9%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atmospheric Methane Removal Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atmospheric-methane-remo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atmospheric-methane-removal-community/31982401-9bd2-65d8-7b54-4136e83e8466%40gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Robert, and all

 

>Capitalism/Socialism

In a sense, humanity is no different to every other organism that ever lived on Earth. We opportunistically acquire (or grab) resources and build valuable assets to both enjoy and use to multiply ourselves, and provide protection against the marauding exploitation of other ‘organisms’. Protection comes in the form of detecting danger and acting on it, and/or static shells that protect against attack. Our brains’ amygdala (inherited from reptiles) is thus designed to enact fight, flee, or hide.

 

I see capitalism as a term that describes this mechanism in the context of economics, and socialism/regulation as attempts to quell capitalism’s excesses.

 

For example, capitalists invest their assets to exploit workers and markets with monopolistic intentions. But workers then create their own valuable assets: unions. (And the state is supposed to break up monopolies.)

 

We are rapidly monopolising the Earth, but where are the ‘unions’?

 

Even nation states – a type of organism – are formed by conflict, with citizens trusting leaders who effectively organise to defeat the attacking enemy. (True for Chairman Mau, but ok, not for Churchill after the war was over.)

 

But then trust itself is an asset, which can be exploited to great gain, albeit there is a trade-off. Too much exploitation of trust ends up eroding it. Politicians rely on trust, with Xi Jinping and the CCP taking it to extreme.

 

That is my general thesis. Wherever I look, I see examples of building of assets for later exploitation. E.g. Newspapers do well by building someone up to be a paragon of virtue. Then, when everyone is bored with that, they exploit their valuable ‘asset’ by finding dirt they can then use to knock that person off the pedestal they created for them, and thereby sell more papers. (Not that the media isn’t needed today. Those people are needed more than ever.)

 

In other words, dreams of utopia will remain dreams forever. At best, it’s always going to be a compromised balance.

 

We know all too well that we’ve become so successful at exploiting the Earth’s resources that we now threaten the planet’s clement habitats and bountiful natural mechanisms. Evidently, organising their protection against our own exploitation is a global challenge that has so far eluded us all.

 

To me, now that we have promising cooling solutions that look likely to be safe (or safe enough for several decades at least), a big part of the question: “Can we learn how to sustain the asset we inherited?” is: “Can we get sufficiently organised quick enough?”

 

But even that is a flawed question. As Oliver Morten says in his book The Planet Remade: “Who’s we”?

 

Perhaps ‘we’ are those who have self-selected to participate in these conversations. If so, I’d suggest that ‘we’ have made a good start, but ‘we’ need to get better organised and connected to those throughout the world of a similar mind, to build the needed critical mass. Perhaps that’s obvious, but it helps to be crystal clear on what direction ‘we’ need to go in.

 

Clive

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atmospheric Methane Removal Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atmospheric-methane-remo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atmospheric-methane-removal-community/31982401-9bd2-65d8-7b54-4136e83e8466%40gmail.com.

[Ye Tao]

Hi Oswald,

I remain agnostic as to which of USA, EU, or China would lead the way.    Maybe we have been watching too much Hollywood when taking brakes from Chopin Op 25? ;)  If I had to bet, whoever or whatever "leads" the work, or jump-start a space race-like a flurry of global activities , will not be national governments.

Ye

On 8/25/2023 7:38 AM, oswald.petersen via NOAC Meetings wrote:

Hello Ye,

 

I am convinced that the climate-crisis can and will be solved by western nations, led by the USA and the EU. China will come on board, and the rest of the world will follow suit.

 

Without such conviction I would go home and play my piano, to be honest. I wonder how you bring up the energy to engage if you don’t believe it can be done?

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Ye Tao

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. August 2023 12:37
An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com>; rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Betreff: Re: AW: Strategy

 

Hi Oswald,

The problems we are working to solve are beyond the capabilities of profit-centered mechanisms, especially amidst an accelerating global shifting away from a Western-led and West-benefiting system.  Better meet the future where it is going than trying to block an unstoppable trend. There is considerable scope for re-imagining the future.

By the way, I see no evidence of functional democracy where we live, and citizen satisfaction regarding government performance often score cross-sectionally well below those in so-called autocracies.  Similar results are found longitudinally, and uniformly in former dictatorships we were able to replace with "democratically-elected" governments.  I am not an expert, but can recommend Jeffrey Sachs on these issues.

Ye

On 8/25/2023 5:14 AM, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:

Dear all,

 

I don’t think that a general debate on socialism or capitalism is helpful. We have to deal with the world as is. In the capitalist part where we live politics are driven by economic interest. Not by truth. Therefore each change needs economic drivers.

 

Things are a little different in China or Russia, where the word of the leader has more weight than here. But we don’t have the telephone number of the dictators involved… I would recommend we stick to the Western, capitalist, democratic world for now.

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

 

 

Von: atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Robert Chris

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. August 2023 08:46

An: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; rob...@rtulip.net; oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Betreff: Re: Strategy

 

Hi Oswald, RobertT and Ye

This distinction between capitalism and socialism is unhelpful.  Let me start by provocatively declaring that capitalism is in its death throes.  It is the primary cause of climate change and it will be a casualty of the restoration of climatic equilibrium. Whether that is arrived at by humanity adapting its behaviours and moving away from capitalism or nature pulling the rug from under its feet, remains to be seen.

To explain this I must first note that these two words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have become labels that are used somewhat carelessly.  Capitalism is now seen as the expression of personal freedom, the means by which the spirit of innovation and progress is unleashed.  Socialism is imbued with the sense of state control and the loss of personal freedom.  In short, capitalism good, socialism bad.  But capitalism does not equate to freedom and socialism is a term that has many meanings but doesn't necessarily have to mean state control of everything and the widespread loss of personal freedom.

Only hermits have total freedom.  If you live in society with other humans your freedom is constrained.  The laws of every nation are primarily directed at limiting personal freedom for the benefit of the wider community.  Even in capitalist economies, which is more or less everywhere now, except perhaps for Bhutan, businesses are constrained by law and their freedom curtailed.  Taxation, regulation, employee rights, the list is endless.  Capitalism is an economic concept about the relationship between capital and labour and it is helpful to limit its use to that domain to avoid confusing it with social policies that are not primarily economic.

The reason that capitalism is doomed is because at its core is the notion of unending growth.  Capitalism cannot exist in a no or de-growth world.  The reason for this is simple to grasp.  Those with capital to invest do so because they will get a return on their investment.  For there to be a return the investment has to make a profit.  For their to be a profit the total of revenues has to exceed the total of costs.  When that dynamic is extended across the entire for-profit economy, the only way for the aggregate of revenues continuously to exceed the aggregate of costs is if there is economic growth.  If there's no growth, the profits from past activities will have nowhere to be invested and the owners of capital will get no value from their accumulated profits, have no reason to invest and stagnation ensues, confidence collapses and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

Systemically, even the generosity of billionaire philanthropists stimulates further growth.  Their grants are used to improve the well-being of others less well-off, and usually those considerably less well-off who are suffering deprivation or disease.  Improving their lives enables them to consume more than they otherwise would and this increases economic activity to generate further growth.  Despite their altruistic intentions, this also serves the philanthropists' financially because it sustains confidence in economic growth and that sustains the value of their assets.

This whole structure is predicated on the notion that more is better.  Whatever your station in life, whatever your personal circumstances, being able to consume more of whatever it is that you want to consume, is a way of you expressing your personal identity, and to the extent that you are limited in that ambition it is an infringement of your personal freedom.  There is no sense in which having enough could be a source of contentment.  Happiness only comes from having more.

Hopefully, I don't need to explain why the constant quest for more even when one already has enough, is neither a route to happiness nor environmentally or economically sustainable.  That's why capitalism is doomed.

I should stress that I am absolutely not anti-capitalist.  Capitalism has been the driver of extraordinary advances in human well-being over the last several hundred years.  But it has come at a price - climate change and colonialism and its legacy are two outstanding examples of the market failures induced by capitalism not internalising the true costs of economic activity.  The issue now is that we have to come to terms with the fact, and I think it is a fact, that capitalism has been so successful that it has outgrown itself.  To put it somewhat crudely, there comes a time when if you keep defecating on your own doorstep, you can no longer get out of the house.

So, as this discussion proceeds, please do not equate capitalism with freedom or socialism with chains, and do not imagine that an economic model that is dependent on continued growth is indefinitely sustainable.  Capitalism is a protean concept and has had many variations through time.  Its current incarnation, the neoliberalsim introduced by Thatcher and Reagan, is a particularly virulent and egregious form and it is no wonder that it has led to an extraordinary acceleration in the ills from unfettered growth and the market failures referred to above.  Whether it can be adapted to retain its positive aspects and delink it from the need for forever growth, is an open question.  I suspect that as such a system emerges, as it surely will, it won't really be capitalism in its established Marxian sense, even though it might still carry that label as a comfort blanket for those struggling to come to terms with change.

Behind all this is another question worth considering.  What is the value of progress and what is a fair price for it?  That question needs to be considered in the context of the longue durée of human civilisation.

Behind all that comes the realisation that climate change can only be approached from a systems perspective.  It is not a technological problem, nor a knowledge problem, nor a political problem nor, nor, nor.  It is all of those combined and they cannot be disentangled.

Regards

Robert

 

On 25/08/2023 06:30, Ye Tao wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f487ba36-d4f7-2c80-e2b0-7db2a7522ae9%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atmospheric Methane Removal Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atmospheric-methane-remo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atmospheric-methane-removal-community/31982401-9bd2-65d8-7b54-4136e83e8466%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/2709f525-23c7-7421-0289-2439ec3ad38d%40rowland.harvard.edu.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/001501d9d748%24b8734700%242959d500%24%40hispeed.ch.

[Robert Chris]

Oswald, you may not think it helpful to reflect on the significance of capitalism in the context of climate change.  That is your opinion and your prerogative.  You are, however, absolutely right when you say that we have to deal with the world as it is but that doesn't mean accepting it without challenge if we think it is ill-adapted to the unfolding future.  You are right that our capitalist world is driven by economic interest not by truth.  If that doesn't ring alarm bells, I don't know what will.

It is precisely attitudes such as those you express that provoke the catastrophists to adopt their gloomy views of the future.  So long as those cleaving to your view remain in power, and at the moment they are still firmly in control, things don't bode too well on the climate front.  Sadly, I think you're in good company. 

I might also add that your remarks about China and Russia indicate that you haven't understood the distinction I was making between capitalism and freedom.  China and Russia are both capitalist states in which entrepreneurs are encouraged to invest for a profit and employ people to do the work to deliver those profits - that's capitalism.  It has next to nothing to do with freedom.  In fact, China's economic miracle over the last few decades illustrates how capitalism in the hands of a despotic regime can deliver extraordinary economic growth.

As I'm writing this you've just replied to Ye, again illustrating a depressing form of denial.  (I'll copy this across and send it as a reply to your latest message.)

Your conviction that the 'climate-crisis can and will be solved by western nations, led by the USA and the EU. China will come on board, and the rest of the world will follow suit' is little more than an article of faith.  An objective view of the last 30 years of international policymaking around climate change and a rational assessment of the current state of geopolitics and the capacity for deep collaboration on climate change, does not justify that conviction because there is not yet evidence that the corrosive effects of neoliberal capitalism and Realism in international affairs are sufficiently well understood.  Until they are, and serious moves are made towards a more sustainable economic model and geopolitical arrangement, little progress will be made on effective responses to climate change.  A failure to engage with these structural questions is perilous denial of our predicament.

We need to remember that our combined power is puny in comparison to that of planetary forces.  If we continue to ignore the weakness of our position, those greater forces will overwhelm us and we'll be looking at a very disorderly correction.

Regards

Robert

On 25/08/2023 12:38, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:

Hello Ye,

 

I am convinced that the climate-crisis can and will be solved by western nations, led by the USA and the EU. China will come on board, and the rest of the world will follow suit.

 

Without such conviction I would go home and play my piano, to be honest. I wonder how you bring up the energy to engage if you don’t believe it can be done?

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

Von: noac-m...@googlegroups.com <noac-m...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Ye Tao

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. August 2023 12:37

An: oswald....@hispeed.ch; 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com>; rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Betreff: Re: AW: Strategy

 

Hi Oswald,

The problems we are working to solve are beyond the capabilities of profit-centered mechanisms, especially amidst an accelerating global shifting away from a Western-led and West-benefiting system.  Better meet the future where it is going than trying to block an unstoppable trend. There is considerable scope for re-imagining the future.

By the way, I see no evidence of functional democracy where we live, and citizen satisfaction regarding government performance often score cross-sectionally well below those in so-called autocracies.  Similar results are found longitudinally, and uniformly in former dictatorships we were able to replace with "democratically-elected" governments.  I am not an expert, but can recommend Jeffrey Sachs on these issues.

Ye

On 8/25/2023 5:14 AM, oswald....@hispeed.ch wrote:

Dear all,

 

I don’t think that a general debate on socialism or capitalism is helpful. We have to deal with the world as is. In the capitalist part where we live politics are driven by economic interest. Not by truth. Therefore each change needs economic drivers.

 

Things are a little different in China or Russia, where the word of the leader has more weight than here. But we don’t have the telephone number of the dictators involved… I would recommend we stick to the Western, capitalist, democratic world for now.

 

Regards

 

Oswald

 

 

 

Von: atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com> Im Auftrag von Robert Chris

Gesendet: Freitag, 25. August 2023 08:46

An: Ye Tao <t...@rowland.harvard.edu>; rob...@rtulip.net; oswald....@hispeed.ch
Cc: 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'via NOAC Meetings' <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; 'Atmospheric Methane Removal Community' <atmospheric-methan...@googlegroups.com>; 'healthy-planet-action-coalition' <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>

Betreff: Re: Strategy

 

Hi Oswald, RobertT and Ye

This distinction between capitalism and socialism is unhelpful.  Let me start by provocatively declaring that capitalism is in its death throes.  It is the primary cause of climate change and it will be a casualty of the restoration of climatic equilibrium. Whether that is arrived at by humanity adapting its behaviours and moving away from capitalism or nature pulling the rug from under its feet, remains to be seen.

To explain this I must first note that these two words 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have become labels that are used somewhat carelessly.  Capitalism is now seen as the expression of personal freedom, the means by which the spirit of innovation and progress is unleashed.  Socialism is imbued with the sense of state control and the loss of personal freedom.  In short, capitalism good, socialism bad.  But capitalism does not equate to freedom and socialism is a term that has many meanings but doesn't necessarily have to mean state control of everything and the widespread loss of personal freedom.

Only hermits have total freedom.  If you live in society with other humans your freedom is constrained.  The laws of every nation are primarily directed at limiting personal freedom for the benefit of the wider community.  Even in capitalist economies, which is more or less everywhere now, except perhaps for Bhutan, businesses are constrained by law and their freedom curtailed.  Taxation, regulation, employee rights, the list is endless.  Capitalism is an economic concept about the relationship between capital and labour and it is helpful to limit its use to that domain to avoid confusing it with social policies that are not primarily economic.

The reason that capitalism is doomed is because at its core is the notion of unending growth.  Capitalism cannot exist in a no or de-growth world.  The reason for this is simple to grasp.  Those with capital to invest do so because they will get a return on their investment.  For there to be a return the investment has to make a profit.  For their to be a profit the total of revenues has to exceed the total of costs.  When that dynamic is extended across the entire for-profit economy, the only way for the aggregate of revenues continuously to exceed the aggregate of costs is if there is economic growth.  If there's no growth, the profits from past activities will have nowhere to be invested and the owners of capital will get no value from their accumulated profits, have no reason to invest and stagnation ensues, confidence collapses and the house of cards comes tumbling down.

Systemically, even the generosity of billionaire philanthropists stimulates further growth.  Their grants are used to improve the well-being of others less well-off, and usually those considerably less well-off who are suffering deprivation or disease.  Improving their lives enables them to consume more than they otherwise would and this increases economic activity to generate further growth.  Despite their altruistic intentions, this also serves the philanthropists' financially because it sustains confidence in economic growth and that sustains the value of their assets.

This whole structure is predicated on the notion that more is better.  Whatever your station in life, whatever your personal circumstances, being able to consume more of whatever it is that you want to consume, is a way of you expressing your personal identity, and to the extent that you are limited in that ambition it is an infringement of your personal freedom.  There is no sense in which having enough could be a source of contentment.  Happiness only comes from having more.

Hopefully, I don't need to explain why the constant quest for more even when one already has enough, is neither a route to happiness nor environmentally or economically sustainable.  That's why capitalism is doomed.

I should stress that I am absolutely not anti-capitalist.  Capitalism has been the driver of extraordinary advances in human well-being over the last several hundred years.  But it has come at a price - climate change and colonialism and its legacy are two outstanding examples of the market failures induced by capitalism not internalising the true costs of economic activity.  The issue now is that we have to come to terms with the fact, and I think it is a fact, that capitalism has been so successful that it has outgrown itself.  To put it somewhat crudely, there comes a time when if you keep defecating on your own doorstep, you can no longer get out of the house.

So, as this discussion proceeds, please do not equate capitalism with freedom or socialism with chains, and do not imagine that an economic model that is dependent on continued growth is indefinitely sustainable.  Capitalism is a protean concept and has had many variations through time.  Its current incarnation, the neoliberalsim introduced by Thatcher and Reagan, is a particularly virulent and egregious form and it is no wonder that it has led to an extraordinary acceleration in the ills from unfettered growth and the market failures referred to above.  Whether it can be adapted to retain its positive aspects and delink it from the need for forever growth, is an open question.  I suspect that as such a system emerges, as it surely will, it won't really be capitalism in its established Marxian sense, even though it might still carry that label as a comfort blanket for those struggling to come to terms with change.

Behind all this is another question worth considering.  What is the value of progress and what is a fair price for it?  That question needs to be considered in the context of the longue durée of human civilisation.

Behind all that comes the realisation that climate change can only be approached from a systems perspective.  It is not a technological problem, nor a knowledge problem, nor a political problem nor, nor, nor.  It is all of those combined and they cannot be disentangled.

Regards

Robert

 

On 25/08/2023 06:30, Ye Tao wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/f487ba36-d4f7-2c80-e2b0-7db2a7522ae9%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atmospheric Methane Removal Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atmospheric-methane-remo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atmospheric-methane-removal-community/31982401-9bd2-65d8-7b54-4136e83e8466%40gmail.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/2709f525-23c7-7421-0289-2439ec3ad38d%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Clive Elsworth]

Ye

 

For once I agree with you.

 

"Each of the great social achievements of recent decades has come about not because of government proclamations, but because people organized, made demands and made it good politics for governments to respond. It is the political will of the people that makes and sustains the political will of governments." -- James Grant, Executive Director, UNICEF

 

I wouldn’t bet on China, which today is a one-man show. I fear he is taking his people down the same road as Chairman Mau.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/f592320e-9757-77f8-b3c1-3e64fdcc3a65%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Robert Chris]

Clive

I won't comment in detail on your remarks below but broadly I think you're on absolutely the right track because your taking a systemic rather than reductionist view of what is happening on our planet.

Regards

Robert

[Ye Tao]

Hi Clive,

In the grand scheme of things, our views can most likely be taken as identical when compared to contrasting with those of a randomly sampled individual from the pool of 8 billion.

Best,

Ye

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/051701d9d74c%2488c68c20%249a53a460%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Dear Peter

 

I had intended to reply to your email from 14 August and was prompted by more recent discussions.

 

For you to say “all us fighting the climate change threat are on the same team” suggests a monolithic approach that puts politics above science.  I have firmed in my view that the current dominant and indeed exclusive view that only emission reduction can save the world is profoundly wrong, and is obtusely leading us down a blind alley of inevitable collapse.

 

Of course eventual decarbonisation is essential, but this is only a long term concern.  The immediate problem is albedo, and the total exclusion of albedo from much public climate policy discussion.  A friend commented how amazing it is that otherwise highly informed and engaged members of the public are unaware of the potential to reverse climate impacts by increasing planetary albedo.

 

A new paradigm is needed.  The challenge is to clarify the nature of the existing paradigm, identify its scientific anomalies, and propose a scientific revolution that can gain assent from those not wedded to the obsolete thinking that now prevails in climate policy.  A key theme in this paradigm shift is that the benefits of refreezing the Arctic far outweigh the risks.

 

None of this implies any sort of conspiracy theory regarding why emission reduction advocacy excludes effective climate action.  It is rather a situation of path dependence, motivated reasoning, irrational assumptions and related mass psychological syndromes.  The groundless fears that have been stoked about geoengineering present a major barrier to getting a fair hearing.  Prejudicial attitudes mean the world invests trillions on clean energy and almost nothing on measures that could actually prevent climate tipping points.

 

I am very happy to “throw stones in the glass house” of prevailing climate policy, as you put it.  This brittle construction needs to be demolished in order to achieve any effective climate results.  It is never correct in scientific discussion to talk in tribal terms, as suggested by your ‘on the same team’ idea.  That suggests a reversion to a psychology that is counter to the scientific principles of evidence and logic as the primary basis of public decisions.  It also suggests we should not listen to people who are not perceived as on the team, such as this talk at Harvard by Mark Mills on The Energy Transition Delusion.  Such team-based thinking results in a reinforcement of unhelpful bias and failure to learn essential information.

 

Best Regards

 

Robert Tulip

 

From: planetary-...@googlegroups.com <planetary-...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 3:20 PM
To: rob...@rtulip.net
Cc: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Sev Clarke <sevc...@icloud.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [prag] RE: Strategy

 

I suggest  that all us fighting the climate change threat are on the same team but focusing on different approaches 

That we try to avoid throwing stones in glass houses and focus on how to improve our own approach 

 

I have been a fan of doing research on SRM. I came across this paper 

I saw this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01738-w

and would like to know what the response is of those advocating SRM and other such approaches 

that are indirect and do not solve the root cause of climate change- to many greenhouse gases

 

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/044601d9ce53%241f1bbfe0%245d533fa0%24%40rtulip.net.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

--

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Planetary Restoration" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to planetary-restor...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CANx_M7SA%2BCudLhGEHtzszJ_1-bW9Ge7%3DD8emvy35tnDD6A40%3Dw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Clive Elsworth]

Peter E

 

Thanks for your email asking for feedback on the nature paper (you cited below) that advocates a magical (my words) Net Zero approach, rather than SRM, because ‘SRM’ could have unwanted side effects.

 

The problem as I see it is that stratospheric and tropospheric SRM are lumped together as the same thing, i.e. conflated. The nature paper says the risks of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) are considered too great, and then both forms of SRM are rejected. This is a classic case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

 

Tropospheric SRM involves adding a small signal (haze and brightened clouds) to a very large noise (the weather). According to Ahlm 2017, haze can reduce total radiative forcing by about the same amount again as brightening clouds. Marine Cloud Brightening alone is already enough to stop the warming, according to Prof Stephen Salter.

 

For decades, the effects of pollution have been providing a cooling influence over and above that provided by clouds preindustrially. That is shown in this Effective Radiative Forcing chart from the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/figures/chapter-7/figure-7-6. During the past 50 years or so there appear to be far worse impacts on rainfall patterns by the warming, than by the cooling from increased aerosols. Indeed, as this pollution gets cleaned up, we are seeing increased unwanted weather changes.

 

As pollution is removed by environmental regulation, what would be so terrible about replacing it with more benign aerosols? By mimicking the photochemistry of mineral dust, such aerosols could also more rapidly remove short-lived powerful warming agents such as methane and black carbon aerosol from the air, making them even shorter-lived warming agents. Admittedly that wouldn’t solve the carbon dioxide problem, but it would buy us more time to do so.

 

Adding haze and increasing cloud brightness is far more controllable than stratospheric aerosol injection. If a tropospheric aerosol intervention needs to be stopped for any reason its effects cease within about a couple of weeks. So, for example icesheets could be protected from direct sunlight for a couple of months during the summer. For the rest of the year in polar regions clouds trap more heat than they reflect away. During the dark winters we want minimal shielding, to enable maximum heat to escape.

 

We accept that the occasional volcano cooling the whole Earth does little harm (to the wider world at least), but these are one-off events. The loss of tropospheric oxidative capacity soon recovers once the light intensity from the stratosphere returns to normal. But for continuous stratospheric aerosol injection we can expect short-lived powerful warming agents to be not so short-lived. That means their concentration would increase in the troposphere, pushing the warming back up. All sorts of other effects can then be expected, such as more water vapour in the stratosphere from the additional methane oxidising there. Stratospheric water vapour is the source of Polar Stratospheric Clouds, which are the main cause of the ozone holes that appear during polar spring times.

 

Conclusions:

• Tropospheric and Stratospheric SRM are different and should each be assessed differently for what they are.
• We don’t see sufficiently rigorous studies on SAI that consider its long-term effects on naturally occurring tropospheric chemistry and their secondary consequences.

 

Clive

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/0f6a01d9e1f9%248c6e3780%24a54aa680%24%40rtulip.net.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Dear Robert 

I think we agree more than you think but saying I am putting politics above science indicates I have somehow 

failed to communicate my position. I have attached my view but in short it says 

science needs to get its politics in order so as to approach the politicians in a powerful way 

to address your concern. The process I describe is one where the scientists decide the optimum technological approach 

by considering all the alternatives so it is not a monolithic approach going in but emerges with a united front to present 

to the decision makers.

Peter   

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Dear Peter

 

Thanks very much for sharing your draft article.  I thought it was a well-considered contribution to strategic dialogue, but have some points of disagreement.

 

I have made the following comments in the attached copy, as well as some suggested revisions.

 

Your title “Climate Experts of the World Unite - Mobilize for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Renewables Now!” leaves out the most important immediate climate action - albedo enhancement.

 

To claim “As far back as 2008 -2009 it was clear … that no new technology needed to be invented” puts it too strongly. I think there will have to be new technology to convert CO2 to useful products.

 

Calling “2 degrees (450 ppm), the tipping point identified by climate scientists” is disputed. Credible views argue tipping points are inevitable at 1 degree C.

 

To say “delay [in] even having a consensus that climate change was a threat… led to misguided thinking that reducing emissions was enough” is too simple.  The view that cutting emissions is enough has much more complex causes.   

 

Calling clean coal “an oxymoron” is not necessarily true. If all power station emissions could be converted to algae, clean coal would be possible.

 

On your point that “There is no Oppenheimer to lead us”, Oppenheimer was only appointed after the US had decided to build the A bomb. He did not set the strategic direction for the Manhattan Project.

 

I struggle to see how your proposed process would work.  You say “A group with a representative selected by each effort, having gone through the process of making the hard choices in their area, would then craft a unified plan to the decision makers and institutions with commitment that we all support and will contribute our efforts to the plan.”  The decision on this is highly complex. The fact that this article has not mentioned albedo (apart from one mention of SRM) illustrates the potential for skewed political influence.  Deciding which are the most effective processes requires major research funding. It is not just a matter of seeking current opinions.  Discussion on the process requires much stronger public debate, with prominent press opinion articles advocating possible strategies to generate wider understanding and constituency for science based policy.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/planetary-restoration/CANx_M7TbSD0zh8RyEpSwasX-Q6yFUTH%3Dhx8AVPdYsGLw84wAXA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Robert,

 

A comment on your statement:

Calling clean coal “an oxymoron” is not necessarily true. If all power station emissions could be converted to algae, clean coal would be possible.

 

The MIT power plant used to bubble all of its waste gases through two huge translucent tanks on the roof, one filled with a beautiful green microalgae, and the other with a lovely golden brown species. These had been genetically engineered to produce high oil content chemically suitable for biodiesel. I doubt they were ever able to achieve the 100% carbon capture you propose above for “clean coal”, but I’m pretty certain they must have excellent numbers on how much carbon capture could actually be achieved!

 

They formed a company to produce algal biodiesel from fossil fuel carbon and save the planet from global warming, and set up a huge project on a huge power plant in the Southwest of the US. The algae from MIT died, the project and the company failed, and most sadly, they removed those lovely tanks from the roof of the power plant  visibly showing carbon capture 10 minutes from my house.

 

I’m not sure where MIT is stuffing their dirty CO2 now, but I’m sure they’re busy purchasing “green” offsets wherever they can find them.  

[Ye Tao]

I agree with Bhaskar's assessment.  There is no way for the MIT demo setup to significantly sequester power plant level fluxes.  One would be limited by photosynthetically active photon flux very very quickly.  Real estate in 2D is everything when working with the sun.

Ye

On 9/11/2023 7:20 AM, Bhaskar M V wrote:

This type of algae projects are just bad engineering.

The attempt to marry a Natural solution with a Engineering problem is WRONG.

A Coal fired Thermal Power Plant is a Engineered system to burn massive amount of coal in the smallest space possible.

Algae grow best in a diffused manner, i.e., in ponds, lakes, oceans, etc.

Maximising algae production in PBRs Raseways, etc., is trying to engineer nature to increase productivity per area. This can't be done beyond a point.

So the simple solution is to grow Algae in large tanks, lagoons, ponds, lakes, and oceans, at the natural pace and allow CO2 emissions to take place as at present, this can result in Net Zero in a simple manner.

Regards

Bhaskar

Director

Kadambari Consultants Pvt Ltd

Hyderabad. India

Ph. & WhatsApp : +91 92465 08213

https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhaskarmv/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/BY3PR13MB49944CAFC6F0192850ECA207DDF2A%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CALBeeSrE%3DAkTr5N-jMZJb7nJ3-rQmq40oTsr8S%2BvD0LR1KaVew%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

They were intensively bubbled to ensure mixing, but algae densities were so great that these were dense opaque solutions in which algae were light-limited in the interior and so unable to take up much CO2.

[Ye Tao]

Fiber optics could help distribute the light into the bulk, before thermal constraints kick in.    This is very similar to the hype about vertical farming;)

[rob...@rtulip.net]

Clean Coal would need algae farms located in the ocean, possibly modelled on the NASA Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA) project, gradually developing capacity to utilise CO2 from coal fired power stations as feedstock together with NPK nutrients from deep ocean water.  HTL could separate hydrocarbon and aqueous fertilizer streams. The fact that the previous MIT and other algae biofuel experiments have failed does not at all show that the concept is intrinsically infeasible or uneconomic.  Most carbon burnt for electricity could eventually be transported in the equivalent of LNG tankers and recycled by photosynthesis in closed loop industrial algae farms at sea, making fossil fuels a renewable energy source.

 

Robert Tulip

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/3eff6644-d809-b7dd-e77d-924bc4811e1c%40rowland.harvard.edu.

[Ye Tao]

Maybe put new coal-fired power plants on drought prone coastal locations and also use the waste heat evaporated some water for desalinatiton?  Madagascar and Somalia come to mind.

Ye

[Ye Tao]

Hi Michael,

Can you send some pictures or sketches of what you are talking about (ridged)? Have people investigated growing salt-water rice cultivars?  Would be another form of surface-based albedo enhancement.

For the molecular plant biologist out there, why not invest in directed evolution to developing salt-water resistant bamboo cultivars that can directly grow in the sea?  If we could develop one that grows horizontally that floats itself, it would be a very efficient method to cover a lot of area for ocean surface albedo enhancement.   I am sure corals would love to have this canopy above them.

Ye

On 9/12/2023 2:51 PM, Michael Hayes wrote:

The primary advantage of using ridged hulls over bag reactors is in the diversity of crops that can be cultivated in a ridged hull. Many that study mCDR farming take for granted that only aquatic crops can be grown in the marine space, and that is incorrect.

As one of many examples, giant bamboo can be grow in floating reactors as well as giant seaweed. Harvesting just the fast growing tops of both plants is likely the best 'cropping' method for both plants as it leaves the slow growing roots and stems. 

Investing in long-term mCDR cultivation infrastructure has few downsides at the STEM, policy, and socioeconomic levels as long as the infrastructure can rapidely expand and last for geological time spans. Bag reactors can not do meet that need.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 11:29 AM Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com> wrote:

To add for clarification:

Using what are largely self replicating materials to build the bulk of the reactors creates a largely self-replicating mCDR infrastructure. Biorock and high density polyethylene can be considered as largely self replicating building materials. 

Triggering exponential growth in mCDR farming capacity is the goal.

What crops/coproducts get chosen is secondary to capacity building.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 11:17 AM Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com> wrote:

James, et al.,

Below is the USDA equipment loan program:

Loans for Beginning Farmers and Ranchers https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/loans_for_beginning_farmers_and_ranchers-factsheet.pdf

Fitting the start-up costs to within this particular well established and well liked program can open the door to the largest single line item in the USDA budget.

The NOAA mCDR team already accepts that the USDA will largely oversee mCDR expansion once the NOAA team checks off on the STEM and socioeconomics. Confinement of the crop by using large 'forever' bioreactors makes the job of the NOAA team far easier, and thus the USDA can move rather quickly in approving mCDR equipment for the loan program.

Bio oil production needs to be a primary farming focus as the bio oil can be used to build more HDPE hulls. Doubling production capacity every 3-5 years is needed for rapid CDR scale up and mCDR farming economics.

I hope this helped answer your question.

On Tue, Sep 12, 2023, 8:16 AM James Bowery <jabo...@gmail.com> wrote:

It would be most welcome if there were advances in green water aquaculture technology to make it more scalable.  That is one of the options I examined for carbon offsets, but part of the problem was the relatively low areal primary productivity. The Algasol PBRs had low areal CAPEX and had at 40° N insolation (Mediterranean) demonstrated annualized 35gm/m^2/day at biomass densities high enough to make OPEX (energy for nutrient pumping, mixing, centrifugal dewatering) economically advantageous as feedstock for algae grazers (tilapia, sockeye salmon etc).

If you have specific references with economics I'd be interested in reading them.

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:02 AM Bhaskar M V <bhaska...@gmail.com> wrote:

ALL current solutions are fundamentally badly engineered. 

Algae should NOT be 

- grown in any sort of closed containers such as bags, pipes, raceways, PBRs, etc.

They should be grown in large open tanks, ponds, lakes, ocean, etc.

- harvested. 

Algae is the natural food for zooplankton and fish. So it should be allowed to be consumed and the larger zooplankton and fish can be harvested in a very simple and economical way. 

Zooplankton and fish grow in open tanks, ponds, lakes, ocean, etc.

Regards 

Bhaskar 

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023, 20:26 James Bowery, <jabo...@gmail.com> wrote:

I spent several years investigating algae offset of coal CO2 with a cofounder of the DoE's EIA. Most of that was attempting to get numbers on performance of various algae cultivation technologies.  The only remotely credible numbers I found came from Algasol's membrane technology that people confuse with OMEGA. Because of that confusion, no one has done due diligence on that tech and almost all of the capital in that company has gone into international patent lawyers.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/0b2101d9e4bd%245b510ad0%2411f32070%24%40rtulip.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NOAC Meetings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to noac-meeting...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/noac-meetings/CALBeeSo2-2_%2B7gWziGqnn-40GbU7%2BChva_47UPAikR5hCdfEjw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAN%3DDHyZyONL_bOgujaiw91xw%2Be5ZDnokW%2BGSjLMdmsNkPWwSWQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Tom Goreau]

Not so simple to adapt fresh water plants to salt, but with Biorock we grow seagrass, salt marsh, algae, and all marine plants faster. Floating mangroves may be possible, but probably not bamboo or rice.